2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6578
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sun Feb 21, 2016 9:32 am UTC

You do know that Kasich's rising in the polls since New Hampshire, right? What "should" happen is not happening now, and Super Tuesday is just over a week away.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:08 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:You do know that Kasich's rising in the polls since New Hampshire, right? What "should" happen is not happening now, and Super Tuesday is just over a week away.

Citation? All I see are either a small rise, or not enough data in the upcoming states. It's so bad that Kasich isn't even reported as a possible winner in some of these states. As a comparison, Kasich can't even beat Carson, and that man has a zombie campaign.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/ele ... epublican/
Super Tuesday states are very much aligned against him. Too Southern, conservative and religious. Kasich's best states don't show up until later in the primary. Which states show Kasich rising in the polls? Perhaps you only look at national polls?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:11 pm UTC

Personally as a Democrat I'd love to see two things happen. Clinton put Sanders away early as possible and the Republican catfight go on as long as possible with perhaps a brokered convention.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:30 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Personally as a Democrat I'd love to see two things happen. Clinton put Sanders away early as possible and the Republican catfight go on as long as possible with perhaps a brokered convention.

Yea, but at what cost? Democrats profited when the Tea Party was in full force, and they sent up witches and legitimate rapers as their nominees, which then lost. But the problem is, some of those crazy people won. It's just not worth the risk.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sun Feb 21, 2016 4:28 pm UTC

You speak like there is a choice. I'm just embracing reality. I would probably vote Republican if they put up a moderate or even a fiscal conservative. I have no real hunger for Clinton. And certainly not Sanders.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:16 pm UTC

We kinda do. We let people casually accept crazier and crazier candidates as if they have merit. We could have spoken up and defended the establishment. It may not be obvious, but it does show that not everyone is on the hype train to crazyville. If you ask Republicans why Bush or Clinton isn't more popular, the only response you get was "hisss* establishment bad!!! *hissss". We just accepted that crazy comment as if it was a sufficient answer.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Feb 21, 2016 7:50 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:WashPo says Jeb! Is done, getting out of race. Good riddance.


Aside from the last name, what exactly was wrong with Jeb? He was speaking to Hispanic / Latino voters and bringing up important immigration topics. He was the most moderate of the entire Republican party.

All bets on Kasich now I guess, at least if anyone actually believes in conservative values instead of just xenophobia or pandering to the Tea Party group. Rubio's tax plan is probably the only good thing about him (strange to see a 35% tax rate on a man elected from Tea Party roots)
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Feb 21, 2016 8:28 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:WashPo says Jeb! Is done, getting out of race. Good riddance.


Aside from the last name, what exactly was wrong with Jeb? He was speaking to Hispanic / Latino voters and bringing up important immigration topics. He was the most moderate of the entire Republican party.

All bets on Kasich now I guess, at least if anyone actually believes in conservative values instead of just xenophobia or pandering to the Tea Party group. Rubio's tax plan is probably the only good thing about him (strange to see a 35% tax rate on a man elected from Tea Party roots)

Unless Rubio dies of a heart attack, it's all bet on Rubio actually. That's why his endorsements has spiked recently. Do you need a source?

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4889
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby HES » Sun Feb 21, 2016 11:33 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:On the other hand, this whole Trump thing is not really funny any more you guys.

It stopped being funny several months ago.
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:07 am UTC

Again and again, the Clinton machine makes respected figures reduce themselves to shills. The longtime Latina civil rights activist Dolores Huerta has claimed that Sanders supporters shouted "English only!" as she was attempting to translate at a Nevada caucus site; this has been refuted with video by Susan Sarandon and Gaby Hoffmann, and confirmed false by Snopes. As always, one doesn't need to look far to find financial ties to the Clinton Foundation, Bill and Hillary's notorious slush fund "charity". Amazingly, in 2008 Dolores Huerta used the same "I never met him" attack on Barack Obama that John Lewis recently used against Bernie Sanders.
Exit the vampires' castle.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:31 am UTC

I agree that Clinton is a like a bad piece of meat that has set to long on the counter. Give me an alternative that isn't worse. What your effective strategy comes down to is, vote Republican, because this cycle, no electable third party exists. Until my generations influence is dead Sanders is unelectable, since socialist equals communist, subconsciously. This plays out in both Cruz and Rubio. In the end this is a lot like entropy, which has been described as a poker game where you can't win, you can't break even and you can't get out of the game. Next January someone will be President.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:34 am UTC

I really don't understand the hatred aimed at Clinton on these forums. Yes she is the archetypal career politician made flesh. That's not exactly exciting. I get that. She won't bring any real change. I get that too.

But when all is said and done, incremental progress is still progress. And being a career politician isn't that bad. Even career politicians generally care about the issues they campaign for, you don't go into politics if you don't care about effecting change. The pay isnt *that* great.

So lack of enthusiasm I get. But why the hate?

Honestly my impression is often that people consider her greatest crimes to be being a woman and having a non-monogamous husband. Meh.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:54 am UTC

I dislike the Clintons because they epitomize corporate corruption to a nearly unmatched extent and have conducted themselves, over their whole careers, as pure opportunists willing to slander or destroy anyone who gets in their way. And they've been perfectly willing to subvert the progressive project whenever it suited them, on everything from welfare reform and the War on Drugs in the 90s to Wall Street corruption and the war in Iraq in the 2000s. If they draw more ire here, on a mostly left-leaning forum, than various Republicans who hold nominally much more objectionable views, it's because they should be on our side and we should expect better from them. There's a reason why Joe Lieberman was one of the most hated figures among progressives in the 2000s, and it wasn't because of anti-Semitism.
Exit the vampires' castle.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:12 am UTC

Diadem wrote:I really don't understand the hatred aimed at Clinton on these forums.
You buy her and you buy Bill. Whatever good he may have done, he gave the Republicans an opening to open up an impeachment. He got off, but it was both distracting and polarizing. And nobody has forgotten. And we've never had a tag team of husband and wife Presidents. I'm not anywhere near sure that this is a precedent that we want to create. A much closer relationship then father/son. And that relationship gives me the willies, given the Bush's.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6858
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:39 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:Whatever good he may have done, he gave the Republicans an opening to open up an impeachment. He got off, but it was both distracting and polarizing.
...and the Republicans are teflon for picking on an utterly minor issue and blowing it into the scandal of the century? And the public is blameless for lapping it up like the Enquirer?

Whatever ill he may have done, this was not it.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:05 am UTC

I spotted this story just now: as secretary of state, Hillary lobbied Democratic senators to support free trade deals which, when courting labor unions in 2008, she had promised to oppose. I'm not some naïf who expects ideological purity in my elected officials, but after enough of these stories you start to lose heart. The Clintons personify everything that's wrong with today's Democratic Party.
Exit the vampires' castle.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:07 am UTC

ucim wrote: And the public is blameless for lapping it up like the Enquirer?
If he had kept his zipper zipped the public wouldn't have been able to lap it up. This was a failing of character.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6858
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:53 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
ucim wrote: And the public is blameless for lapping it up like the Enquirer?
If he had kept his zipper zipped the public wouldn't have been able to lap it up. This was a failing of character.
"Failing of character?" In a politician? This is in the same vein as "the little tart deserved it, wearing a skirt like that in public!".

It was a little dumb on his part, but I'm not concerned about "a little dumb". I'm concerned about "a lot dumb and a lot evil", which is what that Republican charade distracts us from. He did much good and much bad. The cigar thing was neither.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1180
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:10 am UTC

Lazar wrote:Again and again, the Clinton machine makes respected figures reduce themselves to shills. The longtime Latina civil rights activist Dolores Huerta has claimed that Sanders supporters shouted "English only!" as she was attempting to translate at a Nevada caucus site; this has been refuted with video by Susan Sarandon and Gaby Hoffmann, and confirmed false by Snopes. As always, one doesn't need to look far to find financial ties to the Clinton Foundation, Bill and Hillary's notorious slush fund "charity". Amazingly, in 2008 Dolores Huerta used the same "I never met him" attack on Barack Obama that John Lewis recently used against Bernie Sanders.

It really is kinda bonkers how many people are throwing themselves under the bus for Hillary despite the fact that it's come back to bite just about every one of them and make her campaign look worse on top of that. But then, this whole damn election season has been a surreal, slow-motion train-wreck, so why stop now?
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:28 am UTC

ucim wrote:"Failing of character?" In a politician? This is in the same vein as "the little tart deserved it, wearing a skirt like that in public!".
Actually I'm not sure of your point, if you're implying that I'm victim blaming, then I respond that if anything it would be easy to construe what he did as sexual abuse given the relative levels of power. However she was of age. But he got caught, and he made her a souvenir of his sperm, one she evidently retains to this day. However I voted for him anyway, but enough is enough.
commodorejohn wrote:It really is kinda bonkers how many people are throwing themselves under the bus for Hillary
It may not be so cut an dried, at least according to the Washington Post.

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby charliepanayi » Mon Feb 22, 2016 9:02 am UTC

All I know is I'm on the side of whoever is against Trump or Rubio. And if that's Hillary, so be it.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:36 am UTC

Lazar wrote:I dislike the Clintons because they epitomize corporate corruption to a nearly unmatched extent and have conducted themselves, over their whole careers, as pure opportunists willing to slander or destroy anyone who gets in their way. And they've been perfectly willing to subvert the progressive project whenever it suited them, on everything from welfare reform and the War on Drugs in the 90s to Wall Street corruption and the war in Iraq in the 2000s. If they draw more ire here, on a mostly left-leaning forum, than various Republicans who hold nominally much more objectionable views, it's because they should be on our side and we should expect better from them. There's a reason why Joe Lieberman was one of the most hated figures among progressives in the 2000s, and it wasn't because of anti-Semitism.

But is that really true? Bill Clinton was a pretty good president as far as I can tell. He made some mistakes, obviously, but every president does, and he has done quite a lot of good. Overall I'd rate him above Obama, which automatically makes him the best president in the past 55 years (and maybe longer, but I know hardly anything about presidents before Kennedy. I know Eisenhower was a good general, but I have no idea how he was as a president).

And where is the corruption? I keep hearing that claim here, but I see little evidence. I mean sure, Hillary often serves corporate interests, but she's campaigning as a moderate, so that's hardly dishonest (since 'moderate' in the US means 'far right-wing'). And she's still be far, far better than any of the Republican candidates. She's still pushing a left-wing agenda, even if it's only an incremental one. Under her things like the ACA and LGBT rights will be save, and might even slightly improve.

Look, I'm hardly a great fan of Hillary myself. But she'll be ok.

And as for Sanders. Well, I'm a European, so I have a bit more experience with his type of politician than you guys. I don't doubt that his heart is in the right place, and I don't think he'd be a terrible president. But left-wing idealists like him are generally far less effective than you'd hope. It's not easy to make sweeping changes, and it's s easy to get lost in a quagmire of special interests and bureaucracy. Being an effective politician requires a certain kind of pragmatism. No policy is perfect, and every change is going to screw someone over. You have to be able to accept that. It's certainly possible to combine idealism and this kind pragmatism, there are historic examples, but it's a rare quality, and one I'm not sure Sanders has. That being said he'd still be a decent president. At least he probably won't make anything worse in major ways.


morriswalters wrote:
Diadem wrote:I really don't understand the hatred aimed at Clinton on these forums.
You buy her and you buy Bill. Whatever good he may have done, he gave the Republicans an opening to open up an impeachment. He got off, but it was both distracting and polarizing. And nobody has forgotten. And we've never had a tag team of husband and wife Presidents. I'm not anywhere near sure that this is a precedent that we want to create. A much closer relationship then father/son. And that relationship gives me the willies, given the Bush's.

So basically, it's what I said. Her crime is not being monogamous? Well, let me be very clear on that particular subject: Fuck that. The only thing Bill Clinton did wrong was being caught, and that is neither a crime nor a moral failing. And Hillary's crime seems to be that she doesn't care who her husband has sex with. You know what, that's one of the few things about her that I think is absolutely awesome.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:45 am UTC

Diadem wrote:But is that really true? Bill Clinton was a pretty good president as far as I can tell. He made some mistakes, obviously, but every president does, and he has done quite a lot of good. Overall I'd rate him above Obama, which automatically makes him the best president in the past 55 years (and maybe longer, but I know hardly anything about presidents before Kennedy. I know Eisenhower was a good general, but I have no idea how he was as a president).

And where is the corruption? I keep hearing that claim here, but I see little evidence. I mean sure, Hillary often serves corporate interests, but she's campaigning as a moderate, so that's hardly dishonest (since 'moderate' in the US means 'far right-wing'). And she's still be far, far better than any of the Republican candidates. She's still pushing a left-wing agenda, even if it's only an incremental one. Under her things like the ACA and LGBT rights will be save, and might even slightly improve.

Bill Clinton was competent and presided over a strong economy, yes. But he also made a habit of adopting the Republican policy program as his own – notably with his welfare reform proposal, which was rooted in conservative ideas about "welfare queens" and sticking it to the poor. He also expanded the drug war and oversaw the greatest increase in incarceration in American history, exceeding even that which took place under Reagan. His one major progressive initative, health care reform, was a failure; meager though the ACA may be, Obama absolutely surpassed him there. And perhaps most damningly, he supported the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999, which deregulated the financial industry and contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis of the 2000s. The Clintons continue to receive overwhelming support from the financial industry, and Hillary's recent empty rhetoric has done nothing to indicate that she won't continue to be their stooge.

Corruption in American politics doesn't generally take the form of simplistic tit-for-tat transactions; it involves the entire milieu in which campaigns are funded and legislation is written, and the revolving door policies that allow corporations to subvert the public will through regulatory capture. The reason why I say that the Clintons epitomize this is that to a huge extent they have become the Democratic establishment; Bill was very good at helping other Democrats win elections, and the number of currently serving elected officials who owe him favors is legion. (And if you don't return a favor from the Clintons when called upon, you will be on the shittest of shit lists.) Hillary has been the anointed Democratic candidate of moneyed interests for the past decade, and she will pursue their neoliberal agenda while in office. She'll just throw a few bones to the poor while she does it, unlike the Republicans.

So basically, it's what I said. Her crime is not being monogamous? Well, let me be very clear on that particular subject: Fuck that. The only thing Bill Clinton did wrong was being caught, and that is neither a crime nor a moral failing. And Hillary's crime seems to be that she doesn't care who her husband has sex with. You know what, that's one of the few things about her that I think is absolutely awesome.

No, mere infidelity is not the only crime (so to speak). There have been allegations of sexual harassment, sexual assault and even rape made against Bill Clinton, and Hillary has played an active role in fighting them. I don't know to what extent these allegations are true, but they inform the popular opinion of both Clintons and lead some people to doubt Hillary's moral integrity and feminist credentials.
Last edited by Lazar on Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:12 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Exit the vampires' castle.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:53 am UTC

I'm pretty sure that even if the other stories aren't true, that using your power and prestige to bang every female intern that crosses your past is highly immoral. Any CEO that serially did that would be out in minutes

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:40 pm UTC

leady wrote:I'm pretty sure that even if the other stories aren't true, that using your power and prestige to bang every female intern that crosses your past is highly immoral. Any CEO that serially did that would be out in minutes

It bothers me how often so called progressives will call out this as sexual harassment in any (other) office environment, but in in this prominent instance the power dynamic gets completely ignored. The best PR spin of the last century has to be the Clinton's focusing this as an "affair", rather than the fact he had a sexually relationship with a subordinate.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:59 pm UTC

As a so called progressive I'm willing to go on record and state that I don't give a fuck about who a powerful CEO of a major company fucks either, as long as everything is consensual, and business decisions and personal decisions (e.g. who to promote and who to fuck) aren't mixed.

And the US president is going to have power and prestige over virtually everyone. So unless you want to say that the next US president is only allowed to have sex with Vladimir Putin*, I think you are going to have to accept some level of power imbalance anyway.

* Is Trump / Putin slashfiction a thing? Surely it's a thing?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:02 pm UTC

Multiple subordinates

once is unlucky, twice is unfortunate, three plus is a pattern of behaviour

Oh and the cigar thing makes me laugh every time.

Good luck on showing consent & transparent business decisions on clandestine affairs between people that control the course of your life and their young nubile underlings. There is a reason that all companies have disclosure policies and others have outright prohibition.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:35 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:And the US president is going to have power and prestige over virtually everyone. So unless you want to say that the next US president is only allowed to have sex with Vladimir Putin*, I think you are going to have to accept some level of power imbalance anyway.
Or he could have sex with his wife. But that isn't really the point. What he did was waste political capital. It was a major distraction. The question was, why do people hate on the Clintons? This is part of the answer.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:08 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:As a so called progressive I'm willing to go on record and state that I don't give a fuck about who a powerful CEO of a major company fucks either, as long as everything is consensual, and business decisions and personal decisions (e.g. who to promote and who to fuck) aren't mixed.
Keeping business and personal decisions separate is often pretty much impossible. This is why most companies prevent this and CEOs who are caught in sexual relationships with subordinates(assistants, VPs etc.) are at a minimum fired, and at worse tried for harassment.

Diadem wrote:And the US president is going to have power and prestige over virtually everyone. So unless you want to say that the next US president is only allowed to have sex with Vladimir Putin*, I think you are going to have to accept some level of power imbalance anyway.

* Is Trump / Putin slashfiction a thing? Surely it's a thing?
Not direct power over everyone. The President can't come to my house and fire* me from my private sector job, he can do that to an intern(or conversely promote, give better work to etc).


*Insert Trump joke here
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 22, 2016 3:33 pm UTC

sardia wrote:We kinda do. We let people casually accept crazier and crazier candidates as if they have merit. We could have spoken up and defended the establishment. It may not be obvious, but it does show that not everyone is on the hype train to crazyville. If you ask Republicans why Bush or Clinton isn't more popular, the only response you get was "hisss* establishment bad!!! *hissss". We just accepted that crazy comment as if it was a sufficient answer.


While republicans are obviously not a big fan of the democratic establishment, I dare say you would get plenty of reasons for Clinton. Probably involving the aforementioned bludgeoning Benghazi to death with an email server. Honestly, the specific problems that Republicans have with her are not so different from the problems Democrats have with her. Mostly, nobody really trusts her, and believes she'll toss literally anyone/anything under a bus to get ahead. Specific examples may vary, but the general sentiment seems to have extremely broad support. That's kind of an issue for her. Obama was elected and re-elected at least partially as a reaction to establishment politicians and public distrust. She doesn't make a very good follow up for Obama. People are simply not going to turn out like they did, because that enthusiasm is lacking, and I don't see a way for her to credibly pull it off.

Bush, sure. Bush was mostly just boring. He needed to actually present...something that was interesting. He'd have been better off straight up saying "well, it's my turn to invade Iraq now...". I don't hate the guy, but he was in a no-win situation with the rather vanilla platform he presented. Third president from the same family is also not really a great precident to set, so I'm not very sorry about the loss, even if he was more rational than many other candidates.

ucim wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
ucim wrote: And the public is blameless for lapping it up like the Enquirer?
If he had kept his zipper zipped the public wouldn't have been able to lap it up. This was a failing of character.
"Failing of character?" In a politician? This is in the same vein as "the little tart deserved it, wearing a skirt like that in public!".

It was a little dumb on his part, but I'm not concerned about "a little dumb". I'm concerned about "a lot dumb and a lot evil", which is what that Republican charade distracts us from. He did much good and much bad. The cigar thing was neither.

Jose


Failing of character in a politician should still matter. Also, he handled the aftermath in a distasteful way. If he'd been bluntly honest about it, there wouldn't have been any real cause for proceedings. The Republicans were desperately looking for something, anything to hold against him. Blundering into that is kind of an unforced political error.

Also, in general, I tend to view relationships with MUCH younger, less powerful people, working for you as...well, a little worrisome. Not always bad, but...definitely a lot of potential for trouble there. The wise leader probably doesn't try to bang the interns. I think Bill would have had a pretty solid legacy if not for that particular poor decision.

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby DaBigCheez » Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:19 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:And as for Sanders. Well, I'm a European, so I have a bit more experience with his type of politician than you guys. I don't doubt that his heart is in the right place, and I don't think he'd be a terrible president. But left-wing idealists like him are generally far less effective than you'd hope. It's not easy to make sweeping changes, and it's s easy to get lost in a quagmire of special interests and bureaucracy. Being an effective politician requires a certain kind of pragmatism. No policy is perfect, and every change is going to screw someone over. You have to be able to accept that. It's certainly possible to combine idealism and this kind pragmatism, there are historic examples, but it's a rare quality, and one I'm not sure Sanders has. That being said he'd still be a decent president. At least he probably won't make anything worse in major ways.

I feel like there's an element of taking the long game - Sanders himself might not be able to get any of his more idealistic policies through Congress, but him being elected would be a signal that the populace is looking for something swung a bit harder to the left, which would influence future candidates and elections. A slow ideological shift in what's available, rather than "starting on day 1 of his presidency, everything will be better for everyone forever".
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mambrino » Mon Feb 22, 2016 4:58 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Failing of character in a politician should still matter. Also, he handled the aftermath in a distasteful way. If he'd been bluntly honest about it, there wouldn't have been any real cause for proceedings. The Republicans were desperately looking for something, anything to hold against him. Blundering into that is kind of an unforced political error.

Also, in general, I tend to view relationships with MUCH younger, less powerful people, working for you as...well, a little worrisome. Not always bad, but...definitely a lot of potential for trouble there. The wise leader probably doesn't try to bang the interns. I think Bill would have had a pretty solid legacy if not for that particular poor decision.


Yeah, I can agree with that. Relationships with power imbalances are problematic, even more so when they are "affairs", for all parties involved. For example, I am under impression that in this case the whole thing ruined this specific intern's life to a considerable extent?

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6858
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:07 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Actually I'm not sure of your point, if you're implying that I'm victim blaming...
I'm saying that it looks a lot like that. Yes, what he did gave the Republicans an opening, but that does not justify the Republicans' reaction. What you said implies that it does. "If he didn't keep honking that horn, I wouldn't have had to shoot him."

Tyndmyr wrote:Failing of character in a politician should still matter.

Yes, it does matter. But in perspective. The cigar thing is just totally out of perspective. Impeachment for this? Sheesh - there are far bigger mistakes a president could be strung up for; but making this out as if it were one of them diminishes everything the president has his hands in - to wit, going to war, making (and breaking) treaties, putting gays and blacks in prison, supporting or destroying our economy (depending on your perspective)... it's an indication of how little the Republicans care about those kinds of things, compared to thumping their chests about "morality".

Tyndmyr wrote:Also, he handled the aftermath in a distasteful way.
Yes. But we don't shouldn't choose our highest office based on taste. I agree, he should have just said: "Yes, I did it. I'm the president, and she was willing. Now go suck an egg."

Mambrino wrote:I am under impression that in this case the whole thing ruined this specific intern's life to a considerable extent?
If it did, it was the Republican-led dragging of her life through the public eye that did it, not the actual act itself, which if the Republicans had ignored it, would have come to nought.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:26 pm UTC

Things Clinton did in his personal life - i.e. the provable, none illegal ones are objectively terrible and on the face of it go against everything a progressive politician is supposed to stand for. Given the US is a representative democracy, most people are actually voting to a high degree on a perception of character.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:31 pm UTC

leady wrote:Things Clinton did in his personal life
It's not just his personal life, this was an employee.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Feb 22, 2016 5:33 pm UTC

ucim wrote:I'm saying that it looks a lot like that. Yes, what he did gave the Republicans an opening, but that does not justify the Republicans' reaction. What you said implies that it does. "If he didn't keep honking that horn, I wouldn't have had to shoot him."
Yeah, I thought so. You of course are welcome to your opinion, but I disagree. When I voted for him, I did so predicated on the idea that he would accomplish the goals that he promised, in so much as was possible. But he knew going in that the Republicans where out to hang him. So what does he do, he hands them a rope. And for the period of time this went on everything more or less ceased.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:00 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:And the US president is going to have power and prestige over virtually everyone.
The relationship itself with Ms. Liewinski was rather the least of it. Multiple women had accused him of making unwelcome advances that persisted well past a reasonable time to figure out they were unwelcome.

Also he wasn't impeached for adultery, he was impeached for purjury.

If he just had a lot of consensual affairs and either admitted it or kept silent on the issue (for which he absolutely had the legal right to refuse to answer questions about his relationship with Ms. Liewinski) it would have probably still been a scandal, but he wouldn't have been impeached for it.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:07 pm UTC

OK, so I understand why the Democrats went with Hillary, given all her baggage. They don't have much of a choice, given how their ranks are decimated. Now explain the Republicans crazy.

Is it due to their overwhelming success and self victimization? Like I know the politicians respond strongly to primary voters, so the question is why are they so mad?
I think it's because GOP policies aren't working, but they think it's because Democratic resistance is holding them back and that the GOP 'establishment' is secretly siding with Democrats. So the answer is to double down because the only other answer is to accept they are helpless against the massive forces driving the global economy.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:13 pm UTC

The Trump is pretty easy: He's doing bog-standard RWA tactics. Uniform conservative (small-c) society with harsh punishments towards those who differ (walls, bombs, etc).
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:44 pm UTC

We know what trump is doing. Now why would the primary voter lap it up over the mainstream candidates? Trump and Cruz combined have almost 50% of the vote.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests