The General American Politics Thread

[KHCast]

And of course people are using this guy as ammunition for why guys supporting Colin are wrong ans need to be replaced by men like this. Look, I respect Ben and his view, and think he makes good points, but his experiences and opinion does not discredit kaepernick and why he and those following him are doing what they are doing. Some comments in the thread:

 

The last one really is interesting. To paraphrase his point, "Protesting the anthem and America discredits all the good in America, and that's not fair" what isn't fair, is discrediting the existence of problems in America, or treating them like they aren't that bad and acting like making progress is good enough. Women's rights, gay tights, transgender rights, Muslim rights, equality, these are all general issues clear as day in the country. There's more than enough reason to not want to stand for many.

And can someone for the love of god explain how making money and working for the nfl means you can't express distate in the way the country has handled issues.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

23 minutes ago, KHCast said:

And can someone for the love of god explain how making money and working for the nfl means you can't express distaste in the way the country has handled issues.

Speaking only from observation, but I think it's partially due to how we perceive the rich/well off in general, both in real life and in fiction. We're bombarded with information (true or fictional) that portrays those who are well off/rich as greedy, selfish, smug, careless, etc. and even if we know it's fictional, we still subconsciously believe it to be true to some extent, and that becomes even more true when it actually happens in minor or major ways. It's rather odd considering we simultaneously hold the idea of getting rich in great regard.

Now from a real life standpoint, it's also likely because we see the rich/well off as being people who should be able to buy their way out of problems, whether through hiring the best psychologists for a mental problem, bribery for corrupt executives, or just being able to afford something that others usually can't. The thing is though, having money can't fix everything and we don't always seem to remember that, hence why we react with bafflement or hostility at the idea of the rich/well off having a problem, because to us, being rich/working for prestigious groups apparently means that those people SHOULDN'T have problems/issues, so they CLEARLY must be acting out for attention/self-centered reasons.

[Dizcrybe]

6 hours ago, KHCast said:

"Never forgetting the ills of America" means piss if you don't acknowledge our current ills. This just reeks of "yeah racism was bad but it's over now". What a load of crock.

[Patticus]

Possible Trump news emerging soon...

Then this Tweet got posted and deleted:

 

Which was followed by this Tweet...

Shit just gets more and more interesting!

Edit: I guess that the real story is about criminal organizations having links to the already highly questionable Trump Foundation.

Trump's just going to gloss over that if it's brought up, or ignore it. Good fodder for Clinton's campaign though.

[Dizcrybe]

I've been thinking about it, and as much as I hate to say it, I think a Trump win is pretty likely.

He's got his legions of fans locked down, and nothing he says or does short of doing a complete 180 on his views is gonna change that; meanwhile, most of the people who hare against Trump also hate Hillary too much to ever consider voting for her, so they'll either vote third party or not vote at all.

If Hillary does win, I'm betting it'll be neck-and-neck. In any case, I'm gonna try to learn some basic Swedish just to be on the safe side.

[Patticus]

Although Trump has been gaining in recent weeks, he is never going to get the votes of the majority of Hispanic or African American voters, and it's entirely possible at this stage that he'll become the first Republican presidential nominee to lose the white college-educated vote in the last half century. The former groups really are key to winning the White House these days, short of conducting a nationwide campaign of mass racist disenfranchisement, and the latter group - which has proven loyal to GOP candidates for so long - would be a real embarrassment to lose.

Clinton has just had a pretty long run of negative headlines dominating a month's worth of news cycles, and we're not that far off the pneumonic, deplorable weekend - and polls are showing that people didn't like any of that. With hints that Trump's 1990 divorce papers could be unsealed (with Ivana's marital rape allegation contained therein), a possible RNC hack on the cards, a trio of major debates just weeks away, not to mention the imminent opening of early voting in multiple states (with many voters already locked in - on both sides), I think that Clinton is still the likely winner. But boy, she's doing everything she can to fuck it up, isn't she?

538 still has Clinton down as the most plausible winner, so I'm not too worried just yet.

Also, a new national poll by Quinnipiac has Clinton leading Trump by 5 points, showingthat Clinton is down by 5 points from the last Quinnipiac poll.

Quote

Regardless of whom they are supporting, majorities voters likely to cast their ballot for Clinton or Trump said their main reason for supporting their candidate was more in opposition of the other option than liking their choice. More than half—54 percent of Clinton supporters said opposing Trump was their main reason for backing the Democratic nominee. Approximately two-thirds of likely Trump voters—66 percent—said their main reason for supporting him is because they opposed Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/clinton-trump-national-poll-quinnipiac-228165

A lot of voters will vote for Trump because they hate Clinton, but it still looks like more voters will opt for Clinton because they hate Trump. Neither candidate looks likely to win with a margin significant enough to be called a mandate - though should Trump win, he'd likely claim he has the greatest, biggest, strongest mandate of any president in American history. Such a statement would be par for the course for the man who used Trump Foundation money to buy himself a 6 foot tall painting of himself.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Look, I'm not the biggest fan of Clinton, but can we at the very least have our president be someone who knows what the hell they're doing in office and how international relations work?

This is just coming off people being spiteful, and it really shows how low we've come given the representatives.

[Hyp3hat]

Trump drops vague hints that people should be shooting Hilary.... again

You can almost see the crestfallen expressions on his staffers faces back stage... "It's the one thing we told him not to bring up. He's already been in shit for this. He promised he'd never do it again. I just hope the rights for my tell all movie, 'I Was The Staff Of Trump' will be the worth this fucking hassle. Is that a grey hair? Am I going grey? I'm 27"

A Trump win is very unlikely - over 90% of black and hispanic voters won't vote for him, which is pretty unprecedented. Also, I imagine that, once it comes to the debate, Trump may well implode when asked substantive questions about policy - he's been unwilling or unable to do so up until now. If he declines to debate, that's going to damage him with swing voters who will see it as cowardice. If he fucks up, that's also going to destroy his credibility. 

Of course, he's nothing if not a showman, but he's an insecure, ill-tempered, loud, dumb showman who speaks like a child, and Hilary can probably exploit that. 

[Tani Coyote]

If Trump wins, it is likely largely because of too many people assuming Clinton is a sure win, and so not turning out. We saw the disaster with Brexit, and that should be enough of an indication that 1) nobody should abstain if they can help it, and 2) nobody should do a protest vote.

Trump is objectively one of the people most unfit to ever hold the Presidency. He has no political or legal experience at all beyond what any other businessman or citizen might deal with. It is unfathomable to think he'd be trusted with the office.

Even moreso, I seem to recall one of the right's favorite punching bags ran on the same idea of being an "outsider": Jimmy Carter. Oh, but what's more? Carter actually had quite a bit of political experience at the local and state level before becoming President; he was an outsider to DC politics, rather than politics in general. Trump can't say the same.

If nothing else, one of the best things about this election is it provides a means to shut down any right-wing pundit's typical "no experience" criticism of candidates. Cruz had less experience than Obama did in 2008, and Trump has none at all. The GOP establishment once more establishes that it is a firm believer in hypocrisy.

[AdventChild]

Going back to Hillary's health, it wouldn't be much of an issue if it wasn't so persistent and frequent.

Allergies? With Bronchitis like coughs and without any sneezing or runny noses? Yeah right. Also, like to direct a link to another video that goes into more detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpYIhs2ouRo

Parkinson's or not, the photo and video evidence plus the recent 9/11 memorial incident rings clear that she is suffering from some kind of neurological disorder. Or just some media has been claiming a brain tumor or cancer recently. It is something that you can't cover up no matter how hard they try esp. in this digital age where everyone can be 'media' with their camera phones. And if she express more symptoms and attacks during the upcoming debate it'll definitely cause her to lose some ground and give Trump more ammunition against her. This probably wouldn't happen if the DNC would have selected Sanders instead.

And I like point this informative Sargon of Akkad video, while does mention her health problems, it has fine analysis about how Clinton's campaign has been recently wonky and contradictory (and Pepe the Frog = White Supremacist? WTF?). And how negative her Twitter Feed is that is reduced to mudslinging compared to Trump's positive feed makes him look more of the "good guy". And Trump's burn with the repost of Obama's Tweet (Wow). Though seeing her coughing up phlegm into the glass and drinking it in slow motion was, ugh, rather unnecessary.

And he raises a good point about the pressure of being in the White House and the draining and demanding stress that comes with the job and using Obama, Bush and even Hubby Bill as good examples of the "Curse". And she is 68 going to 70 in the next couple of years and trying to obtain this stressful job while showing such physical/mental complications even before stepping into the White House? I guess she'll try anything to obtain first female president even if it literally kills her. Even I wouldn't run for president at that age and just retire somewhere (like any or most sane person would do).

I repeat what I said before, with Trump out of the picture, the Repubs and the Sander supporters/Anti-Hillary Dems are going to lock their targets on her and be hard pressed on her with any failed policies, controversies, contradictions, etc. And this will just pile on more stress on her and would definitely deters and decreases her health even further. And if Bill dies before her, it'll definitely emotionally wreck her as well. And even if she wins the election, let's just say prepare to see Tim Kaine as your next president in due time.

Also agree with the age thing and that there should be some kind of maximum age limit/restriction for candidates like how the minimum is around 35 and that maximum would be between 50-55 and no higher along with stronger health background checks. Not trying to sound ageist, but I don't trust myself voting for someone who looks like they'll be sent to the grave within a year or two and not live for a full term or even to inauguration.

[Tani Coyote]

That's why we have a line of succession.

It really isn't an issue. If something (God forbid) happens to a President, there's always someone to pick up the reins.

Her health isn't grounds to vote for Trump. It's grounds to ask her to step down.

Who knows. Maybe she'd be the first President to resign for health reasons as much as the first woman.

Furthermore, the Vice President can force the President to step down, if they have the signatures of half of the Cabinet. The President can contest it after a certain short period, but the Vice President can keep declaring the President unfit for office as many times as they want.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Plus, age hardly means shit when it comes to getting elected - Reagan was around Hillary's age when he was elected, so not sure why that's even a point against her not being fit for office or whether her husband's death will affect her considering how cutthroat politics are as it is. Yeah, it'll be tragic, but she'll move on like everyone else who lost a loved one to do what she feels needs to be done.

[PSI Wind]

I'd be more than okay with Tim Kain as the President. It's why the Vice President exists. 

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

19 hours ago, AdventChild said:

And even if she wins the election, let's just say prepare to see Tim Kaine as your next president in due time.

And that's worse than Trump as president.........how exactly?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Much rather have Clinton than Trump.

Hell, I'd rather have a third term of Bush than Trump.

[AdventChild]

And as many of us have mentioned or probably thinking, I rather have Obama serve 1 or 2 more years, as much as I don't like the guy, so both parties can do a massive wipe and reset of candidacies with better choices, but sadly both parties seem dead set on the current ones between the rich tycoon and the unhealthy one who looks like she might keel over and die before election day.

[Hyp3hat]

21 hours ago, AdventChild said:

Going back to Hillary's health, it wouldn't be much of an issue if it wasn't so persistent and frequent.

Allergies? With Bronchitis like coughs and without any sneezing or runny noses? Yeah right. Also, like to direct a link to another video that goes into more detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpYIhs2ouRo

Parkinson's or not, the photo and video evidence plus the recent 9/11 memorial incident rings clear that she is suffering from some kind of neurological disorder. Or just some media has been claiming a brain tumor or cancer recently. It is something that you can't cover up no matter how hard they try esp. in this digital age where everyone can be 'media' with their camera phones. And if she express more symptoms and attacks during the upcoming debate it'll definitely cause her to lose some ground and give Trump more ammunition against her. This probably wouldn't happen if the DNC would have selected Sanders instead.

And I like point this informative Sargon of Akkad video, while does mention her health problems, it has fine analysis about how Clinton's campaign has been recently wonky and contradictory (and Pepe the Frog = White Supremacist? WTF?). And how negative her Twitter Feed is that is reduced to mudslinging compared to Trump's positive feed makes him look more of the "good guy". And Trump's burn with the repost of Obama's Tweet (Wow). Though seeing her coughing up phlegm into the glass and drinking it in slow motion was, ugh, rather unnecessary.

And he raises a good point about the pressure of being in the White House and the draining and demanding stress that comes with the job and using Obama, Bush and even Hubby Bill as good examples of the "Curse". And she is 68 going to 70 in the next couple of years and trying to obtain this stressful job while showing such physical/mental complications even before stepping into the White House? I guess she'll try anything to obtain first female president even if it literally kills her. Even I wouldn't run for president at that age and just retire somewhere (like any or most sane person would do).

I repeat what I said before, with Trump out of the picture, the Repubs and the Sander supporters/Anti-Hillary Dems are going to lock their targets on her and be hard pressed on her with any failed policies, controversies, contradictions, etc. And this will just pile on more stress on her and would definitely deters and decreases her health even further. And if Bill dies before her, it'll definitely emotionally wreck her as well. And even if she wins the election, let's just say prepare to see Tim Kaine as your next president in due time.

Also agree with the age thing and that there should be some kind of maximum age limit/restriction for candidates like how the minimum is around 35 and that maximum would be between 50-55 and no higher along with stronger health background checks. Not trying to sound ageist, but I don't trust myself voting for someone who looks like they'll be sent to the grave within a year or two and not live for a full term or even to inauguration.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201602/study-half-all-presidents-suffered-mental-illness

Dwight Eisenhower suffered a heart attack and a stroke whilst in office, Woodrow Wilson had a stroke in 1919, Kennedy had a debilitating condition called Addison's Disease whilst in office, and four Presidents died of illness whilst in office. FDR was in a wheelchair. Reagan's mind started going towards the end of his presidency. The office of the President doesn't have a great track record for Clinton to besmirch with a common case of pneumonia on the campaign trail - who would have thought meeting thousands of people would give you a respiratory illness? It can't be, they must be hiding something from us.  

IDK why everyone is so suspicious of the walking pneumonia diagnosis, with antibiotics it can be cured that quickly. It's a fairly easy thing to get, and a fairly easy thing to cure. People are just looking to shit on Hillary for whatever reason, if it's not health it's something else.

If you wanted to start throwing about Parkinsons' Diagnoses based on a Youtube video, fine, I'd just like to see the degree on your wall first. but I'd imagine Trump is a much easier fit for all you armchair Dr House's out there. For example....

Well, he's got a very weird red tinge to him, as well as being pretty bloated - that could definitely point to a heart problem. His mental state is far more worrying, he speaks and writes like a child, has difficulty remembering things he says mere days before, is angry and combative when he doesn't get what he wants, demands to be the centre of attention, and is obsessed with himself to the point of being paranoid. There's definitely something wrong with him, and the fact that no-one's talking about means there's a vast conspiracy to defraud the people into voting for a sick person, because of course there is.

See how easy it is?

[Nepenthe]

Half the reason people vote for their candidates is how they look and present themselves. The job interview is predicated as much on looking as appealing as possible as it is on the actual resume qualifications. We know what people always say: "I want a President I can have a beer with," policies, education, and arguments be damned.

You know who I can have a beer with? Fucking Furries. I don't want a Furry as President.

[Dizcrybe]

That would be a pretty interesting term, though.

[Nepenthe]

I hang out with these people on the daily.

[Tani Coyote]

On 9/18/2016 at 8:45 AM, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Plus, age hardly means shit when it comes to getting elected - Reagan was around Hillary's age when he was elected, so not sure why that's even a point against her not being fit for office or whether her husband's death will affect her considering how cutthroat politics are as it is. Yeah, it'll be tragic, but she'll move on like everyone else who lost a loved one to do what she feels needs to be done.

Wait.

Are people seriously arguing that Bill (God forbid) could pass away from natural causes while she is in office and this would affect her duties?

Are they forgetting how ANCIENT a lot of these people live to be? 3 of our first 4 Presidents lived well past 80, and they didn't have the quality of care that the Clintons would have (the one President who didn't live past 80 was George Washington, who had to deal with his "doctors" regularly bleeding him out to try and cure his sickness before he was finally allowed to die).

That's not even touching on the fact many ponder how legitimate the marriage is after the Lewinsky scandal. It's quite possible it's largely political at this point.

[Lucid Dream]

I'm not American, nor do I know too much about American politics, but I'd like to ask how many people are actually actively into voting for Clinton?

Trump may be despised, but in the end, he has a strong following that will go out on voting day to vote and try their hardest to get Trump to get elected. I don't see much of the same for Clinton. Hell, it really seems like the only reason a lot of people are supporting her is because the alternative is so awful.  

I mean, if voting was compulsory in America, than Clinton would most likely win. But it's not compulsory, and if people aren't dedicated to Clinton, I can't see many going out of their way to vote for her. 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

If anything, Trump being who he is should be enough to get as many folks in to prevent him from getting elected by voting for Clinton. Any other candidate they might not care too heavily about depending on where they lie politically, but someone like Trump will probably be a boost for Clinton if only to avoid whatever kind of presidency he'll bring to fray.

[Tani Coyote]

Both candidates are rather luckluster. They have their enthusiastic supporters, but people on both sides of the fence are severely disappointed at the choices this season.

It was always joked American politics was the lesser of two evils, but this season it really is. The majority don't really care for either, but will vote for one to keep the other out of office.

That really is Clinton's trump (no pun intended) card. She has a hell of a lot more experience (Trump has none), and she also has the Clinton brand name. A lot of Clinton's praise comes from an economic surge that was largely beyond his control, but he still gets credit for it nonetheless. This credit gives Hillary a lot more political capital, especially given her own strong political record. Many are optimistic for a return to the 90s with Hillary, and the fact Trump is the alternative gives her that much more support.

It really comes down to turnout. So long as people show up, Clinton will likely crush him. The key is that they show up and not assume her victory is a given, or do the irresponsible thing and protest vote. Even Bernie Sanders, systematically mistreated as he was by Clinton's allies (I'm never going to forgive that bullshit the superdelegates pulled before the CA primary), is saying it's a bad idea to vote third party or abstain. He didn't squeeze a bunch of compromises out of her for his supporters to run away in protest.

With the huge amount of support Johnson is getting from conservatives and libertarians who dislike Trump, the right is looking more fragmented than the left. And that might just be Clinton's key to victory. Let's compare the Parties: Cruz, Romney, H.W. Bush and several other notables are not backing Trump. But Sanders is backing Clinton. That really says something.

Plus, a lot of it comes down to demeanor. Trump's tendency to speak his mind with little if any censorship is fantastic as a private citizen, since being able to say anything (no matter how asinine) is a key part of free speech. But as a politician, he is going to have to broker deals with leaders foreign and domestic, and that requires far more tact. Riling people up is great when you just want to be a celebrity, but it's an awful trait to have in any political position.

[Patticus]

The trouble with Democratic voter turnout is that Democrats aren't the most reliable of voters - they need an inspirational figure, some soaring rhetoric and a strong central message to get them amped up. Clinton is arguably inspirational, but she has abhorred the flighty rhetoric of Obama and Sanders for a long time now (though it was not always so) and has had a lot of difficulty with piecing together a central message that works like "Make America Great Again" over the years.

Clinton is also extremely experienced, as you note - she has detailed policies out the wazoo, the support of probably every living former president (and maybe Ronald Reagan's son, IIRC?), she has a more in-depth knowledge and understanding of everything than her entire squad of advisers (probably), and she knows how to get things done in Washington like few others. However, for all her advantages, she's the incumbent establishment candidate in an anti-establishment election cycle, facing off against a powerful, radical change candidate who can get people's emotions (well, anger) turned up to a rolling boil in a matter of moments - a vital part of getting voters out into the polling booths - and one who has defied conventional wisdom on what gaffes and policies should or should not kill a campaign. Clinton has also suffered in the public eye from years of unrelenting anti-her propaganda, which is unarguably why the polls have narrowed so much recently. Constant negative news cycles will do that to you.

Conventional wisdom says Clinton should win handily, but it sure as shit isn't that easy. There's a much higher standard that she must consistently meet between now and November, for example - Trump only needs to look sober and not go off on a rant or utter something nasty on the debate stage (such is the low bar that Clinton herself set for him with her Disqualifying Trump campaign theme), while Clinton needs to project a solid and uplifting vision of her impending presidency, deliver decisive wounds to Trump and not look or sound bullshitty or secretive if or when these "scandals" eventually return to haunt her on those debate stages.

Trump is a charismatic man with a dominating stage presence, and it's going to be difficult to beat him, even if, substantively, Clinton is the easily superior choice.