The New American Politics thread

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I don't think Dean's campaign imploded because of "BYAHH!!!!", he was already on his way out at that point (he did byahh after finishing 4th in Iowa I think...). That was just his gift to us as he was leaving.

Its worth reading the 538 stuff on the Dean Scream. As the Scream didn't actually exist in the room I the sense of it being out of place with the volume of the room. Its an unfortunate affect of directional microphones.

And in there analysis its unlikely that the scream had a significant affect.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by nik-

This has nothing to do with her being a woman. It's because she's a Clinton, and to the Republicans and their voters, the Clinton's are basically Nixon. If another qualified woman was running, this would be a landslide too. Howard Dean's campaign imploded because he said "byah". So lets not pretend this is a woman only thing.

Perhaps but the misogyny is pretty strong.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Buster

We have an authoritarian blowhard, with no idea how government works.

running against

A career politician, compulsive liar, and warmonger.

You should apply the same semantic rigour to those last two claims that you wanted everyone else to apply to Trump being labelled a racist.

Except that you won't, because your narrative requires two equally bad choices, so that you can continually rail against the one you truly detest under a guise of non-partisanship. You're not a rational observer pointing out the flaws everyone else seems to gloss over, as you perceive yourself to be, you are merely a partisan of some obscure point of view you refuse to do other than vaguely allude to.

So tell us - if you could/can vote in the US election, who would you vote for? My guess is Gary Johnson, which is fine, but maybe try arguing for him as a better candidate than either Clinton or Trump, instead of yelling nonsensically and trying to get an equal hate on against Hillary as everyone else has against Donald. It won't work. She could be Kodos in a human skinsuit and it still would be no contest as to which mainstream candidate is less of an existential threat to civilization.

[peter12]

Look, you are right that when it boils down to Hil and Don, Hil takes it by a landslide. Doesn't change the fact that Hil is an awful candidate.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by jammies

You should apply the same semantic rigour to those last two claims that you wanted everyone else to apply to Trump being labelled a racist.

Except that you won't, because your narrative requires two equally bad choices, so that you can continually rail against the one you truly detest under a guise of non-partisanship. You're not a rational observer pointing out the flaws everyone else seems to gloss over, as you perceive yourself to be, you are merely a partisan of some obscure point of view you refuse to do other than vaguely allude to.

So tell us - if you could/can vote in the US election, who would you vote for? My guess is Gary Johnson, which is fine, but maybe try arguing for him as a better candidate than either Clinton or Trump, instead of yelling nonsensically and trying to get an equal hate on against Hillary as everyone else has against Donald. It won't work. She could be Kodos in a human skinsuit and it still would be no contest as to which mainstream candidate is less of an existential threat to civilization.

that's an easy test.

State why you would vote for Trump without using the words Hillary or Clinton.
State why you would vote for Hillary without using the words Donald or Trump .
State why you would vote for Johnson without using the words Donald, Trump, Hillary or Clinton.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by GGG

A level of decorum should be maintained.

When the field is already muddy your shoes will get dirty just by walking through it.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

Look, you are right that when it boils down to Hil and Don, Hil takes it by a landslide. Doesn't change the fact that Hil is an awful candidate.

Other than being a woman, she's just more of the same. I wouldn't call her awful, she won't be any better or any worse than the rest of the shlubs the Americans have elected in the last half-century when she wins. President is now one of those positions where the best you can hope for is someone who won't screw things up too badly.

[AcGold]

This is the same as any election cycle except this time all the shady behind closed doors stuff is impossible to hide.

We're getting a real bleak glimpse into a monolithic structure that's been around for a long time. Everyone is so outraged a businessman and reality star is running... while a Hollywood star was already president thirty years ago.

At least Trump has some business experience Reagan was a straight up actor. It's going to be hard to take a country seriously when it already elected a movie star. Imagine the headlines if Reagan was running now, they'd tear him to shreds.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Reagan was only the ####ing governor of California before he was President. Try again.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Reagan was only the ####ing governor of California before he was President. Try again.

Not to mention that Reagan was extremely politically active for pretty much his entire life. I don't agree with most of the man's politics, but comparing him to Trump is just a colossal whiff.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Trump is unquestionably the worst politician we've ever seen. He doesn't know anything about the tact or subtlety required to run a good campaign. He has no organization. His campaign chief might be serving two masters. His kids, who have little to no experience outside working for their dad, and who know if they cross their dad will be cut out of his company and inheritance, are vitally important to his decision making. He sucks at this. The only reason this race is within an earshot is because his opponent is so disliked. So he has good timing I suppose if nothing else.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by AcGold

This is the same as any election cycle except this time all the shady behind closed doors stuff is impossible to hide.

We're getting a real bleak glimpse into a monolithic structure that's been around for a long time. Everyone is so outraged a businessman and reality star is running... while a Hollywood star was already president thirty years ago.

At least Trump has some business experience Reagan was a straight up actor. It's going to be hard to take a country seriously when it already elected a movie star. Imagine the headlines if Reagan was running now, they'd tear him to shreds.

Terrible example. Raygun was involved in politics for quite sometime before he was President. Trump's "business experience" is pretty dodgy. Bankruptcies, countless lawsuits, failure to pay people etc. And it's not the president's job to be a CEO.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Trump is unquestionably the worst politician we've ever seen. He doesn't know anything about the tact or subtlety required to run a good campaign. He has no organization. His campaign chief might be serving two masters. His kids, who have little to no experience outside working for their dad, and who know if they cross their dad will be cut out of his company and inheritance, are vitally important to his decision making. He sucks at this. The only reason this race is within an earshot is because his opponent is so disliked. So he has good timing I suppose if nothing else.

Oh man, Trump running against Obama would have been incredible. Imagine the debates.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Oh man, Trump running against Obama would have been incredible. Imagine the debates.

Haha and we all thought the "and we have less bayonets now too" comment against Romney was savage.

That would be brilliant.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by jammies

Other than being a woman, she's just more of the same. I wouldn't call her awful, she won't be any better or any worse than the rest of the shlubs the Americans have elected in the last half-century when she wins. President is now one of those positions where the best you can hope for is someone who won't screw things up too badly.

I dunno. I agree that she's going to be more of the same and not any better or worse than others at the actual job of being President. Frankly, I'm not sure she won't be better at it. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if she has more success realizing her agenda than Obama given her experience and obvious intelligence. Obama's statement that she's the most qualified person in history to seek the Presidency was, I think, hyperbolic... but it's not an obviously crazy thing for him to say.

As a candidate though, I think she's probably the worst the Democrats have offered in 20 years. I was too young to remember Dukakis, but clearly Bill and Obama were better candidates. John Kerry, while mostly uninteresting and certainly not great, was mostly just boring. Gore, similarly, had his faults and was somewhat prickly and arrogant, but not to the extent that Hillary comes off as. Certainly once you add the baggage of the e-mail scandal and Benghazi, she's less electable - there's no comparison between narrowly dodging indictment and the Swift Boat nonsense that Kerry got tagged with, for example.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Gore, similarly, had his faults and was somewhat prickly and arrogant, but not to the extent that Hillary comes off as.

You'd be arrogant too if you invented the Internet.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Saying that Clinton is a compulsive liar is, in itself, a lie.

There is an extremely high probability that Hillary Clinton committed Perjury when she testified in front of congress. While she may not meet the medical definition of the term or be on the level of Trump, she isn't exactly the most truthful person either.

It takes a pretty special person to lie on that level.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

There is an extremely high probability that Hillary Clinton committed Perjury when she testified in front of congress. While she may not meet the medical definition of the term or be on the level of Trump, she isn't exactly the most truthful person either.

It takes a pretty special person to lie on that level.

Do you mean an investigation that was for some reason not started until after the FBI didn't recommend charges in the email server issue. What new evidence is there that this couldn't have been done earlier.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

There is an extremely high probability that Hillary Clinton committed Perjury when she testified in front of congress. While she may not meet the medical definition of the term or be on the level of Trump, she isn't exactly the most truthful person either.

It takes a pretty special person to lie on that level.

Good lord. How many times do Republicans get the throw their feces at the same wall hoping something will stick? This is getting ridiculous.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

There is an extremely high probability that Hillary Clinton committed Perjury when she testified in front of congress. While she may not meet the medical definition of the term or be on the level of Trump, she isn't exactly the most truthful person either.

It takes a pretty special person to lie on that level.

What extremely high probability? BTW next week was last month. The article is almost a month old and The Hill is a conservative website.