The 2016 US American Election Thread

[ernie]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I think it was exploitive and the media ran with it. Like I think bringing up Machado in a debate is exploitive too. Would she have brought it up if Miss Universe was blonde from Kansas? The Democrats do this a lot and it pisses people off, which makes this race as tight as it is.

Yes it would have been brought up because calling someone a fat pig or whatever it was was still a valid example of his misogynistic attitude. However, with the Miss Good Housekeeping nickname they also got the immigration angle. But no doubt in my mind if it was just one of those things it still would have been brought up.

It wasn't exploitive given the person the comments were directed at has no issues with Clinton talking about it and wants her to talk about it. It was a surprise to Trump but there is nothing wrong with that. And it showed again not just his misogyny and bigotry but his complete inability to handle things in a grown up manner. He didn't even try to deny he said those things and basically excused himself by saying well she gained 42 pounds so I'm right and there is no problem. Except it is a problem and on several counts. There is also not weight requirement for eligibility to the pageant.

At this point it baffles me how any woman or parent with daughters can even think about voting for him.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

I read an article yesterday about the Miss Universe thing. She said she gained 18 pounds, not 50. And afterwards, battled bulimia and anorexia.

1997 article, it says 60 pounds
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9701/29/fringe/miss.universe/

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by ernie

Yes it would have been brought up because calling someone a fat pig or whatever it was was still a valid example of his misogynistic attitude. However, with the Miss Good Housekeeping nickname they also got the immigration angle. But no doubt in my mind if it was just one of those things it still would have been brought up.

It wasn't exploitive given the person the comments were directed at has no issues with Clinton talking about it and wants her to talk about it. It was a surprise to Trump but there is nothing wrong with that. And it showed again not just his misogyny and bigotry but his complete inability to handle things in a grown up manner. Geez he didn't even try to deny he said those things and basically excused himself by basically saying well she gained 42 pounds so I'm right and there is no problem. Except it is a problem and several counts.

At this point it baffles me how any woman or parent with daughters can even think about voting for him.

definitely as a political candidate he's an embarrassment. But these issues the Democrats go down still bother me.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I think it was exploitive and the media ran with it. Like I think bringing up Machado in a debate is exploitive too. Would she have brought it up if Miss Universe was blonde from Kansas? The Democrats do this a lot and it pisses people off, which makes this race as tight as it is.

First point: Would trump have brought up the weight thing (initially) or called Ms Universe had she been blonde and from Kansas "Ms piggy"? Yep, he would have.

Second point: Would Clinton bring up Ms Universe if she was blonde and from Kansas and had gained a bit of weight and was insulted by Trump. Of course she would have. And Trump would have been just as thin skinned.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

definitely as a political candidate he's an embarrassment. But these issues the Democrats go down still bother me.

But it's a major issue. The person in charge of your country and the figurehead people around the world likely should be demeaning to half the globes population because they were born with the wrong parts. Or a flat chested (Trump says you can't be a knockout if you're flat chested). Or somewhat overweight or whatever.

You also can't be Muslim. Or Mexican. Or a whole host of other things.

It's also relevant because it provided the perfect illustration of not just who he is but how he handles these things (poorly). He can't resist taking the bait and saying something stupid, offensive or both.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

definitely as a political candidate he's an embarrassment. But these issues the Democrats go down still bother me.

This.

It's really depressing that the Republicans set the bar so low.
But the Democrats seem to sink to 'barely higher' far too often.

For instance, Democrats constantly argue that eschewing SuperPACs would be unilateral disarmament. Bernie proves that to be bullpoop, and voters reward his integrity, but those new facts change nothing.
Think of the political capital that Clinton could get from vowing to refuse SuperPACs in 2020.

Back on this topic, the GOP debases the conversation by arguing "shame on you on behalf of the Benghazi victims" and the Democrats follow them into the mud with their own, more moderate, smear from a fallen soldiers family.

It's an election about trustworthiness; arguing "we're better than them, at least" is such weak tea.

[MissTeeks]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ks-out-clinton

The media loved the spectacle, and so did Trump, who didn’t hesitate to pass out some memorable if fallacious tidbits himself. “She weighed 118 pounds or 117 pounds and she went up to 170, so this is somebody who likes to eat,” he said in an interview at the time. In fact Machado says she gained only a fraction of that weight but she didn’t dare correct him; she was already frightened he’d make good on a threat to strip her of her crown if she didn’t follow through on the performance at the gym. (Trump’s campaign did not return a request for comment.)
Machado never did lose her crown, but she lost her health for a time. Though she had never suffered from eating disorders previously, in the years that followed the ordeal at the gym, she struggled with anorexia and bulimia. It took five years before she was fully recovered, and longer before she could talk about what she went through. Now she hopes to use the insights gleaned to help teenagers struggling to love their bodies.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

definitely as a political candidate he's an embarrassment. But these issues the Democrats go down still bother me.

What else can anyone bring up with Trump? this is all he is, there is nothing else,
he's the least qualified candidate in history, he has no policies just vague assurances he'll fix things because he's great, he has no history of public service, he has no real history of commercial success in truth, he rode the real estate bubble like so many of us and then caught on as a reality TV brand, any time he's tried anything else it's failed abysmally.

What issues define Trump politically? he's unqualified, impulsive, vindictive and thin skinned running on a ill thought out unconstitutional platform of anti immigration, it's utterly essential that the democrats do their job and dredge up any and every instance of Trumps racist or questionable business practise so that the voting public can judge his suitability for the job when he's running on a platform that he's got a magic secret formula for the countries ills.

[Flash Walken]

Yep, Trump is easily the least qualified presidential candidate in US history.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Gozer

This.

It's really depressing that the Republicans set the bar so low.
But the Democrats seem to sink to 'barely higher' far too often.

For instance, Democrats constantly argue that eschewing SuperPACs would be unilateral disarmament. Bernie proves that to be bullpoop, and voters reward his integrity, but those new facts change nothing.
Think of the political capital that Clinton could get from vowing to refuse SuperPACs in 2020.

Back on this topic, the GOP debases the conversation by arguing "shame on you on behalf of the Benghazi victims" and the Democrats follow them into the mud with their own, more moderate, smear from a fallen soldiers family.

It's an election about trustworthiness; arguing "we're better than them, at least" is such weak tea.

I get that Clinton and the Democrats have their flaws. A lot of it is just systemic with politics. You have someone in the game long enough then the stink rubs off. I don't know if there will ever be a flawless candidate for either party because of that.

But I have to disagree that Clinton is only slightly better. Even with her flaws, she is light years ahead of Trump. Trump has all the trademark flaws of a politician and billionaire businessman, but he also has countless personal and character flaws that make Clinton pale in comparison.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Be interesting to see how this plays. Not sure if Trump has much support among ex-Cubans, but if he does this could cost him Florida, and thus any chance to win. Ex-Cubans will not like this at all and they are a big voting block in Florida.

Yeah, it's a pretty important demographic for him, as it trends more Republican than most Latino communities. There was a noticeable uptick in Trump's Florida polling after Rubio re-entered the senate race, and if this drives a wedge between Trump and Rubio, that's really bad for him.

However, Clinton is still in favour of ending the embargo, so it's hard to imagine the pro-embargo crowd flocking to her. Maybe there's in intermediate tone she can strike.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I get that Clinton and the Democrats have their flaws. A lot of it is just systemic with politics. You have someone in the game long enough then the stink rubs off. I don't know if there will ever be a flawless candidate for either party because of that.

But I have to disagree that Clinton is only slightly better. Even with her flaws, she is light years ahead of Trump. Trump has all the trademark flaws of a politician and billionaire businessman, but he also has countless personal and character flaws that make Clinton pale in comparison.

The difference between Clinton and Trump is that even if you believe all of the anti Clinton rhetoric none of it changes the job she would do as a president, she's a center right Democrat, her presidency would be no different than any other center right democrat, much the same as Biden or Obamas, you're not voting for Hillary, you're voting for a moderate Democrat administration, it's utterly predictable.

With Trump you are literally voting for him, as a person, he has no political identity or much in the way of serious policy, there's not one person in the US, including Trump himself, that can say what his presidency would look like.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I get that Clinton and the Democrats have their flaws. A lot of it is just systemic with politics. You have someone in the game long enough then the stink rubs off. I don't know if there will ever be a flawless candidate for either party because of that.

But I have to disagree that Clinton is only slightly better. Even with her flaws, she is light years ahead of Trump. Trump has all the trademark flaws of a politician and billionaire businessman, but he also has countless personal and character flaws that make Clinton pale in comparison.

I'd go so far to say that not only is Clinton light years ahead so is the democratic party compared to the GOP right now. Pretty sure I've said it before but it's quite simple to me: One party has a platform based on equality and inclusion. The other party has a platform based on exclusion and bigotry.

Once the GOP manages to catch up on basic things like human rights and people actually being equal it's not even worth talking about their specific policies IMO. For that to happen you have to pass that basic requirement and they quite simply do not at this time.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by ernie

I'd go so far to say that not only is Clinton light years ahead so is the democratic party compared to the GOP right now. Pretty sure I've said it before but it's quite simple to me: One party has a platform based on equality and inclusion. The other party has a platform based on exclusion and bigotry.

Once the GOP manages to catch up on basic things like human rights and people actually being equal it's not even worth talking about their specific policies IMO. For that to happen you have to pass that basic requirement and they quite simply do not at this time.

It's ironic that Clinton is probably the most qualified candidate to run in recent history, at the least tied with Bush Sr. you could also maybe throw Nixon in there as well, massively more qualified than Bill or Bush Jr, Reagan or Carter.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I wonder if Kellyanne is just trying to get herself fired so she at least gets the Lewandowski severance package. She just kind of admitted Trump did indeed break the embargo (and of course blamed it on the Clinton Foundation)

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by ernie

I'd go so far to say that not only is Clinton light years ahead so is the democratic party compared to the GOP right now. Pretty sure I've said it before but it's quite simple to me: One party has a platform based on equality and inclusion. The other party has a platform based on exclusion and bigotry.

Once the GOP manages to catch up on basic things like human rights and people actually being equal it's not even worth talking about their specific policies IMO. For that to happen you have to pass that basic requirement and they quite simply do not at this time.

Completely agree. In fact, if you want to see the gulf in divide between the GOP and the Democrats, watch the VP debate between Mike Pence (GOP) and Tim Kaine (Dems). There ain't no way Kaine is not going to mop the floor with Dunce. While Clinton vs Trump was more a debate of person vs person (with Clinton fleshing out more of her policies, and Trump being a bombastic dumbass), the VP debate will likely be a debate of the respective party's ideologies. It will highlight the gulf between the GOP and Dems.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It's ironic that Clinton is probably the most qualified candidate to run in recent history, at the least tied with Bush Sr. you could also maybe throw Nixon in there as well, massively more qualified than Bill or Bush Jr, Reagan or Carter.

Obama himself said that Hillary Clinton is more qualified than him or Bill or anyone else. I would agree with him. Clinton's role as First Lady (Both Arkansas and USA), NY Senator and Secretary of State is enviable. She's done more good in any one of those roles than Turnip has done in his entire life.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Completely agree. In fact, if you want to see the gulf in divide between the GOP and the Democrats, watch the VP debate between Mike Pence (GOP) and Tim Kaine (Dems). There ain't no way Kaine is not going to mop the floor with Dunce. While Clinton vs Trump was more a debate of person vs person (with Clinton fleshing out more of her policies, and Trump being a bombastic dumbass), the VP debate will likely be a debate of the respective party's ideologies. It will highlight the gulf between the GOP and Dems.



Obama himself said that Hillary Clinton is more qualified than him or Bill or anyone else. I would agree with him. Clinton's role as First Lady (Both Arkansas and USA), NY Senator and Secretary of State is enviable. She's done more good in any one of those roles than Turnip has done in his entire life.

but it's BAD,BAD, BAAAAAAAD experience.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Izzle

There ain't no way Kaine is not going to mop the floor with Dunce.

This is part of the problem with peoples' rhetoric. Pence isn't a dunce. He's a guy with some pretty wrong-headed ideas about a country should be run. I also don't know why you think Kaine is going to "mop the floor" with him, except that I gather that you know you'll agree with what Kaine says and disagree with Pence before either of them says anything. That's fine, nothing wrong with having a perspective that favours the democratic view of governing and I'm right there with you. But that's not the measure of who wins a debate.

It will highlight the gulf between the GOP and Dems.

Hopefully. Unfortunately it'll be pretty boring for the average person who isn't terribly interested in politics so they probably won't watch it.

Obama himself said that Hillary Clinton is more qualified than him or Bill or anyone else. I would agree with him.

It's at least arguable that he's right. It's not a completely absurd thing to say. Whereas, saying that Trump is less qualified that Obama, Bill or anyone else who's held office is almost certainly correct.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

but it's BAD,BAD, BAAAAAAAD experience.

Yes an integral part of the most fiscally succesful presidency in decades, the first to take the budget out of deficit, then joined a second administration that managed to save the US from the worst effects of the crash, brought in some form of healthcare, killed Bin Laden all against the backdrop of an utterly obstructionist Congress and Senate.

Oh yes and that dreadful foundation, considered the gold standard in how to effectively deliver aid to the third world.

What a ###### eh?

[Izzle]

To give you an idea of how bad the Green party (Jill Stein) and Libertarian party (Gary Johnson) are:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...leaders-228899

They're nothing more than cartoons and shouldnt be taken seriously. The one person that could be taken seriously is William Weld who is Gary Johnson's running mate.