Political Roundtable Part X

[Kanyewest]

I agree that the US could do better than Hillary but I see it as unlikely unless Hillary decides not to run for a second term. It will be an uphill battle in 2020 especially considering how the DNC ran things in the primaries this time around.

I could see a scenario where Trump would be challenged within the Republican party if he won. A lot of the down ticket Republicans are trying to distance Trump from the "true Republicans". The discontent with Trump would likely only increase if he was president for a term.

There are a lot of negatives with Hillary, but not being a "true Democrat" isn't one of them. I guess something like health/scandal/etc could lead to Clinton not seeking a re-election. However short of that, the outcomes would be a Republican or Hillary in 2020 to follow Hillary winning this election.

I agree. I don't see a democratic challenger like canmac suggested, I could see a Republican challenger. She could be a one term president. Although at this point I think the nominee in 2020 would be someone like Trump/Cruz rather than someone like Kasich/Romney.

[gtn130]

As a outsider I look at 2 flawed candidates both have significant baggage and neither should be running to become President of the USA. That said Hillary is by far the only choice in this election but I also hope she is a one term President with a Democrat rival challenging her in 2020.

The Republican Party is in crux they are non competitive with growing areas of the American demographics and the Trump candidacy has set back any outreach by 10 years. Right now the Republican party is divided in 3 groups Tea Party, Evangelists and pragmatic right of center Conservatives. The Tea Party will follow the red meat slightly crazy conspiracy theory political agenda of Trump and Fox News. The Evangelists are a interesting group and right now they are a very united constituency for the Republican Party but that can change. In Canada we had that version for many years in Quebec with the Catholic Church where the priests would basically dictate on how the flock should vote and obviously this was in the more rural areas of the Province. That changed people began to look at there circumstances and began to vote what was best for them rather than the clergy. The Catholic Church was slowly disassembled in the Province to a shadow of it's former glory and in fact Quebec has a low rate of Christians in the Province.

The USA has a higher percentage of religious followers (all religions) than most Western Democracies and that trend will reach the USA in due time.

If the Republican Party loses even 5% of its target constituency they become the 21st Century equivalent to the Whig Party.

With this election you really have to add the 4th group that is behind the Trump candidacy, the "aggrieved white". They may overlap with the Tea Party, but probably should be considered separately. Assuming Trump loses, I wonder if any 2020 candidate will go after this group, or if Trump will be their only champion.

Trump's largest and strongest group of supporters is middle class suburban white people - the aggrieved white man being cheated by the FAILING ECONOMY is mostly but not entirely a red herring. His supporters are simply afraid of minorities and want to preserve their utopian white fantasy where they don't have to perform in a global economy.

[gtn130]

I think Wikileaks and O'Keefe videos pretty much moves many of the theories into the fact arena. At least in some significant measure. Just as a reminder, Obama, Trump and Clinton are all documented to be corrupt, congenital liars.

lol

Legitimately nobody cares about the Wikileaks stuff outside of the alt-right. There was absolutely nothing revealing or damaging about them at all for Hillary, but I did enjoy the courier font and the HIGHLIGHTING OF TEXT to underscore just how super top TOP secret confidential those LEAKS were.

And don't get me wrong - Hillary is a mediocre candidate at absolute best, and nobody in their right mind should be excited about her. The bigger mistake you're making, though, is how you somehow manage to bracket Trump, Hillary and Obama into the same group.

Aside from being a xenophobic and misogynistic white nationalist, Trump is an imbecile - he's incompetent and not fit to be president. You did correctly point out that he's a liar.

Hillary is a mediocre career politician. Benghazi and EMAILS are mostly republican fan fiction. The emails show some mediocre judgment, but nothing sinister. The average republican dumbass thinks Hillary should be thrown in jail - this is silly and misguided.

Obama has a 55% approval rating and has been a very good president. I'm sure you will disagree with that, but history will be kind to him. You probably think he's a LIAR because he said you could keep your doctor or didn't abide by his line in the sand or whatever, and these are cool talking points, but you should take a step back and think harder about things.

I dislike Hillary and for that reason suggested she'd be a poor candidate for election. And the other side HATES her with an unreasonable passion. In an ordinary year this might motivate people to flood to the polls. Even people who are generally disposed to agree with her find that her public persona is prim, fussy, nitpicky, and overly guarded -- this last rightly so given the history of how the rupugnicans went after Bill.

But even I have to admit she is likely one of the most uniquely over-qualified and experienced candidates ever to run for the office. By all accounts she was one of the most involved first spouses ever in shaping public policy. She has seen presidential decision-making not just from her work in the west wing, but late night advising Bill during times of crisis (I mean the Newt Gingrich-led griminess and shenanigans -- before the impeachment jazz). She helped shape White House policy during a period of great prosperity. Then she moved on to public life, getting elected to the Senate in New York and swiftly rose to high level appointments and committees, earning grudging respect even from people who worked on the other side of the aisle. Then without burning bridges after a difficult failed election bid she carved out a role in the next administration in the most important cabinet position, during a time of world unrest. By accounts of people who are in position to know overseas -- even people politically opposed to the Clintons-- the Clinton Foundation does some remarkable work worldwide, is not strictly a nation building exercise or predatory organization like say the World Bank is often accused of being.

Actually, reading leaked accounts of her private emails I found I liked her better when she was able to drop her careful mask and show her sharp wit. And for someone that so many people hate, she must be damn good at the actual job of politics since she stays constantly relevant at a high level even despite those who actively work to tear her down.

Yes she's too deep in the minutia of policy maybe. Might not have the sort of charisma to lead, or vision or foresight, but she knows how to work the machine of politics and get things done. While she may not be a visionary leader I suspect she could be a very good president. Even if I feel like that lack of charisma might endanger her chance to really do work by landing a second term.

I'm mostly with you - I think Hillary will maintain the status quo and that's more than good enough for this election cycle.

That said, my ideal president would actually want to reform how our financial institutions operate, would be a technocrat, would actually understand the problems with higher education and student loans, and would make foreign policy decisions that aren't rooted in traditionalist Washington DC dogma. Hillary doesn't check any of those boxes, but obviously i'm still voting for her and it's the easiest decision of my life.

[gtn130]

I think Wikileaks and O'Keefe videos pretty much moves many of the theories into the fact arena. At least in some significant measure. Just as a reminder, Obama, Trump and Clinton are all documented to be corrupt, congenital liars.

lol

Legitimately nobody cares about the Wikileaks stuff outside of the alt-right. There was absolutely nothing revealing or damaging about them at all for Hillary, but I did enjoy the courier font and the HIGHLIGHTING OF TEXT to underscore just how super top TOP secret confidential those LEAKS were.

And don't get me wrong - Hillary is a mediocre candidate at absolute best, and nobody in their right mind should be excited about her. The bigger mistake you're making, though, is how you somehow manage to bracket Trump, Hillary and Obama into the same group.

Aside from being a xenophobic and misogynistic white nationalist, Trump is an imbecile - he's incompetent and not fit to be president. You did correctly point out that he's a liar.

Hillary is a mediocre career politician. Benghazi and EMAILS are mostly republican fan fiction. The emails show some mediocre judgment, but nothing sinister. The average republican dumbass thinks Hillary should be thrown in jail - this is silly and misguided.

Obama has a 55% approval rating and has been a very good president. I'm sure you will disagree with that, but history will be kind to him. You probably think he's a LIAR because he said you could keep your doctor or didn't abide by his line in the sand or whatever, and these are cool talking points, but you should take a step back and think harder about things.

Wow. Benghazi lies are R fabrications? It's a fact that she and Obama knowlingly blamed the tragedy on some obscure person to deceive the American people. Is that even debatable at this point? The Obama lies about ACA are just a small fraction of the serial deceptions that the president has foisted upon the country. I and others here have documented them over the past several years. Perhaps you weren't part of the thread during that period. We both agree Trump is an imbecile but if you think Obama and Clinton are any less dishonest or destructive you're gravely mistaken IMO.

Isn't the latest info documenting the D's efforts to incite violence at Trump rallies enough to open your eyes? D's were fired and had to quit their jobs because the truth came out.

Explain what Hillary specifically as Secretary of State should have done differently with Benghazi. Explain why she should be THROWN IN PRISON - not to mention disqualified from running for president.

[gtn130]

The Benghazi Truthers are incredible.

Nine different bodies have investigated Benghazi: the State Department's Accountability Review Board and eight separate congressional committees or staff reports. With the select committee's reports in, all of them have now completed investigations. Each has identified problems with the way the incident was handled, but none have uncovered real evidence of an administration cover-up or failure to properly respond to the attacks.

Doesn't matter! Throw her in jail!

[popper]

lol

Legitimately nobody cares about the Wikileaks stuff outside of the alt-right. There was absolutely nothing revealing or damaging about them at all for Hillary, but I did enjoy the courier font and the HIGHLIGHTING OF TEXT to underscore just how super top TOP secret confidential those LEAKS were.

And don't get me wrong - Hillary is a mediocre candidate at absolute best, and nobody in their right mind should be excited about her. The bigger mistake you're making, though, is how you somehow manage to bracket Trump, Hillary and Obama into the same group.

Aside from being a xenophobic and misogynistic white nationalist, Trump is an imbecile - he's incompetent and not fit to be president. You did correctly point out that he's a liar.

Hillary is a mediocre career politician. Benghazi and EMAILS are mostly republican fan fiction. The emails show some mediocre judgment, but nothing sinister. The average republican dumbass thinks Hillary should be thrown in jail - this is silly and misguided.

Obama has a 55% approval rating and has been a very good president. I'm sure you will disagree with that, but history will be kind to him. You probably think he's a LIAR because he said you could keep your doctor or didn't abide by his line in the sand or whatever, and these are cool talking points, but you should take a step back and think harder about things.

Wow. Benghazi lies are R fabrications? It's a fact that she and Obama knowlingly blamed the tragedy on some obscure person to deceive the American people. Is that even debatable at this point? The Obama lies about ACA are just a small fraction of the serial deceptions that the president has foisted upon the country. I and others here have documented them over the past several years. Perhaps you weren't part of the thread during that period. We both agree Trump is an imbecile but if you think Obama and Clinton are any less dishonest or destructive you're gravely mistaken IMO.

Isn't the latest info documenting the D's efforts to incite violence at Trump rallies enough to open your eyes? D's were fired and had to quit their jobs because the truth came out.

Explain what Hillary specifically as Secretary of State should have done differently with Benghazi. Explain why she should be THROWN IN PRISON - not to mention disqualified from running for president.

I don't think she should be disqualified from running for president or thrown in prison (absent charges and due process). I think what she should have done differently with Benghazi was simply to tell the truth, same as we would expect from any govt. employee.

[gtn130]

Wow. Benghazi lies are R fabrications? It's a fact that she and Obama knowlingly blamed the tragedy on some obscure person to deceive the American people. Is that even debatable at this point? The Obama lies about ACA are just a small fraction of the serial deceptions that the president has foisted upon the country. I and others here have documented them over the past several years. Perhaps you weren't part of the thread during that period. We both agree Trump is an imbecile but if you think Obama and Clinton are any less dishonest or destructive you're gravely mistaken IMO.

Isn't the latest info documenting the D's efforts to incite violence at Trump rallies enough to open your eyes? D's were fired and had to quit their jobs because the truth came out.

Explain what Hillary specifically as Secretary of State should have done differently with Benghazi. Explain why she should be THROWN IN PRISON - not to mention disqualified from running for president.

I don't think she should be disqualified from running for president or thrown in prison (absent charges and due process). I think what she should have done differently with Benghazi was simply to tell the truth, same as we would expect from any govt. employee.

Nine different bodies have investigated Benghazi: the State Department's Accountability Review Board and eight separate congressional committees or staff reports. With the select committee's reports in, all of them have now completed investigations. Each has identified problems with the way the incident was handled, but none have uncovered real evidence of an administration cover-up or failure to properly respond to the attacks.

[popper]

Explain what Hillary specifically as Secretary of State should have done differently with Benghazi. Explain why she should be THROWN IN PRISON - not to mention disqualified from running for president.

I don't think she should be disqualified from running for president or thrown in prison (absent charges and due process). I think what she should have done differently with Benghazi was simply to tell the truth, same as we would expect from any govt. employee.

Nine different bodies have investigated Benghazi: the State Department's Accountability Review Board and eight separate congressional committees or staff reports. With the select committee's reports in, all of them have now completed investigations. Each has identified problems with the way the incident was handled, but none have uncovered real evidence of an administration cover-up or failure to properly respond to the attacks.

Clinton immediately acknowledged in email correspondence that the attack was by a terrorist group, but then began to feed the public the fabrication that the attack was part of a broader protest against an obscure video. She and Susan Rice (with Obama's blessings) did so for political reasons.

[gtn130]

I don't think she should be disqualified from running for president or thrown in prison (absent charges and due process). I think what she should have done differently with Benghazi was simply to tell the truth, same as we would expect from any govt. employee.

Nine different bodies have investigated Benghazi: the State Department's Accountability Review Board and eight separate congressional committees or staff reports. With the select committee's reports in, all of them have now completed investigations. Each has identified problems with the way the incident was handled, but none have uncovered real evidence of an administration cover-up or failure to properly respond to the attacks.

Clinton immediately acknowledged in email correspondence that the attack was by a terrorist group, but then began to feed the public the fabrication that the attack was part of a broader protest against an obscure video. She and Susan Rice (with Obama's blessings) did so for political reasons.

You're characterizing an error made by the CIA as a lie propagated by Hillary. This is why nobody can take Benghazi Truthers seriously. There's no perspective or nuance.

[montestewart]

Nine different bodies have investigated Benghazi: the State Department's Accountability Review Board and eight separate congressional committees or staff reports. With the select committee's reports in, all of them have now completed investigations. Each has identified problems with the way the incident was handled, but none have uncovered real evidence of an administration cover-up or failure to properly respond to the attacks.

Clinton immediately acknowledged in email correspondence that the attack was by a terrorist group, but then began to feed the public the fabrication that the attack was part of a broader protest against an obscure video. She and Susan Rice (with Obama's blessings) did so for political reasons.

You're characterizing an error made by the CIA as a lie propagated by Hillary. This is why nobody can take Benghazi Truthers seriously. There's no perspective or nuance.

It is interesting how the Republican party line on Benghazi is, with perhaps a few exceptions, not echoed by those who served in upper level State, Defense, or intelligence positions in past Republican administrations. This isn't Robert McNamara pursuing a path in Vietnam, despite clear evidence showing it was doomed; it isn't even the Bush II administration pursuing a path to war based on flimsy and politically motivated evidence. It's tragic miscalculation and miscommunication (and yeah, politics was probably involved, as it always is) regarding a far more isolated set of circumstances. I imagine it's an extremely long list of top-level officials from every administration that could be gone after on such a narrow pretense.

[Induveca]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/hillary-clinton-foundation-morocco-wikileaks/505043/

Ouch probably the most damning evidence of how deeply corrupt the Clinton's entire apparatus is....

Of course her response "The Russians". How many 3rd world leaders will she owe favors to once she takes office?

There are so many scandals out of Wikileaks I'm not even sure which one to post. I'm waiting for the new O'Keefe video Monday where he claims Brazile and Clinton play a starring role in the corruption.

[AFM]

More alt-right trash

My G Milo Y was at GWU last night for a talk, they closed it off from the public though. I'm about to watch it on youtube

[Induveca]

More alt-right trash

My G Milo Y was at GWU last night for a talk, they closed it off from the public though. I'm about to watch it on youtube

Would not the alternative to right be left?

[Kanyewest]

The corruption charges might stick more if it wasn't Trump running or if O'Keefe wasn't the messernger. The Trump Foundation has paid James O'Keefe, which isn't all that ethical.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-foundation-paid-activist-filmmaker-james-o-keefe-n670381

Also O'Keefe also has gotten in trouble with the law in the past. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/05/james_okeefe_and_friends_plead.html

[montestewart]

More alt-right trash

My G Milo Y was at GWU last night for a talk, they closed it off from the public though. I'm about to watch it on youtube

Gives it more of a hoity toity aura.

[bsilver]

As a outsider I look at 2 flawed candidates both have significant baggage and neither should be running to become President of the USA. That said Hillary is by far the only choice in this election but I also hope she is a one term President with a Democrat rival challenging her in 2020.

The Republican Party is in crux they are non competitive with growing areas of the American demographics and the Trump candidacy has set back any outreach by 10 years. Right now the Republican party is divided in 3 groups Tea Party, Evangelists and pragmatic right of center Conservatives. The Tea Party will follow the red meat slightly crazy conspiracy theory political agenda of Trump and Fox News. The Evangelists are a interesting group and right now they are a very united constituency for the Republican Party but that can change. In Canada we had that version for many years in Quebec with the Catholic Church where the priests would basically dictate on how the flock should vote and obviously this was in the more rural areas of the Province. That changed people began to look at there circumstances and began to vote what was best for them rather than the clergy. The Catholic Church was slowly disassembled in the Province to a shadow of it's former glory and in fact Quebec has a low rate of Christians in the Province.

The USA has a higher percentage of religious followers (all religions) than most Western Democracies and that trend will reach the USA in due time.

If the Republican Party loses even 5% of its target constituency they become the 21st Century equivalent to the Whig Party.

With this election you really have to add the 4th group that is behind the Trump candidacy, the "aggrieved white". They may overlap with the Tea Party, but probably should be considered separately. Assuming Trump loses, I wonder if any 2020 candidate will go after this group, or if Trump will be their only champion.

Trump's largest and strongest group of supporters is middle class suburban white people - the aggrieved white man being cheated by the FAILING ECONOMY is mostly but not entirely a red herring. His supporters are simply afraid of minorities and want to preserve their utopian white fantasy where they don't have to perform in a global economy.

Maybe they're not entitled to their grievances, but that doesn't mean they don't feel that way. Among the beliefs of hardcore supporters are:
Minorities are getting preferential treatment in jobs.
Minorities are lazy and prefer to get government benefits rather than work.
Immigration, especially Hispanics, are taking their jobs.
Liberal environmental policies are taking their jobs.
The liberal elite looks down on them and feels and acts superior.
Government trade policies work against the white working man.
Their future is bleak unless there are radical government changes. I.e., mainstream R and D policies offer no hope for them.

[Induveca]

Read on Twitter

At least this is keeping things interesting....

[montestewart]

Read on Twitter

At least this is keeping things interesting....

Interesting is not the word that comes to mind. At this point, the main plus for Trump is if Clinton wins, all those crackpots will have to get up off the couch and go out and start a "revolution," and we'll have to continue to follow "the news" about it 24/7.* This **** is cutting into my reading and movie watching time.

* I'm guessing that if somehow Trump wins, all the liberals fulfilling their vows to move to Freedonia or wherever will not make for very compelling television.

[Induveca]

Read on Twitter

At least this is keeping things interesting....

Interesting is not the word that comes to mind. At this point, the main plus for Trump is if Clinton wins, all those crackpots will have to get up off the couch and go out and start a "revolution," and we'll have to continue to follow "the news" about it 24/7.* This **** is cutting into my reading and movie watching time.

* I'm guessing that if somehow Trump wins, all the liberals fulfilling their vows to move to Freedonia or wherever will not make for very compelling television.

So revealing corruption is.....inconvenient? Those angered by the shocking level of institutionalized corruption within the DNC are crackpots?

This seems to be the stance of most Clinton supporters I know, I'll ask you the same question. Is your "shoot the messenger" stance on the leaks/videos purely because you find Trump to be too toxic for the presidency?

Genuinely curious if this would have been the same response if Kasich were the nominee.

Not sure if it was you or maybe another mod who blocked me for talking about Wikileaks, I'm just genuinely curious how Clinton supporters would handle these leaks if Trump wasn't the nominee (open to anyone).

[montestewart]

Read on Twitter

At least this is keeping things interesting....

Interesting is not the word that comes to mind. At this point, the main plus for Trump is if Clinton wins, all those crackpots will have to get up off the couch and go out and start a "revolution," and we'll have to continue to follow "the news" about it 24/7.* This **** is cutting into my reading and movie watching time.

* I'm guessing that if somehow Trump wins, all the liberals fulfilling their vows to move to Freedonia or wherever will not make for very compelling television.

So revealing corruption is.....inconvenient? Those angered by the shocking level of institutionalized corruption within the DNC are crackpots?

This seems to be the stance of most Clinton supporters I know, I'll ask you the same question. Is your "shoot the messenger" stance on the leaks/videos purely because you find Trump to be too toxic for the presidency?

Genuinely curious if this would have been the same response if Kasich were the nominee.

Not sure if it was you or maybe another mod who blocked me for talking about Wikileaks, I'm just genuinely curious how Clinton supporters would handle these leaks if Trump wasn't the nominee (open to anyone).

The thing about using green font is...

PS: First I've ever heard of any status called "blocked" or any actions taken against you for anything. Blocking you from talking about Wikileaks doesn't sound like something any of the mods here would do.