Not a lot of "keepers" in that group either, are there?Originally Posted by 57Brave
Not a lot of "keepers" in that group either, are there?
again Hawk, who ?
Have never seen or heard of any candidate at any level you find acceptable.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
I'll let you know if/when I do find one that I find "really good". I think we as a nation have to get past just being "acceptable". I guess Hilldog is just as "acceptable" as Trump but is that really going to get the job done in the world in which we find ourselves?
bravesnumberone (10-20-2016)
we elect citizens to be public servants not popes or saints
Who as a candidate was "really good"
Lincoln --
FDR
Jefferson
perhaps Washington - but history tells us he had his flaws
I fully expect you to go all Reagan
These are people that want to fill the potholes.
People are flawed.
Why would you expect otherwise from politicians ?
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
But the other reality is that Clinton has been, at every turn, prepared, disciplined, and coldly strategic. She triggered Trump’s epic meltdown purposely, and kept Trump off balance over multiple weeks that probably represented his last chance to turn the election around. She was ready for every question, prepared for every attack, and managed to goad Trump into making mistakes that became the main story the day after every single debate.
-Ezra Klein
I am reminded of Barrack's reply, "you are likable enough Hillary"
She's a friggin assassin
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
I was on the road in outstate Minnesota and I was happy that I was missing the debate. But I caught snippets of it on my car radio as I was searching for the Cubs/Dodgers broadcast (couldn't find the broadcast, so it was classic rock for most of the trip). The only things I heard while my radio was doing the scan was Trump complaining about how the system is rigged and Hillary saying "what I plan to do." I want you all to know this is the first place I reference for analysis of the debate. It's clearly more genuine than the echo chamber writ large (although there's sometimes a mini echo chamber in here). I did catch Nate Silver on Colbert and I didn't find anything he was saying to be something I didn't already know (not that I'm smarter than Nate Silver).
Well, the next nineteen days will be a marathon of the Donald trying to metaphorically attach horns and a tail to Hillary and Hillary trying to prove to the public that the upper half of Donald's body is an automaton with Donald's brain sitting in his nether regions. Should be fun (SARCASM. SARCASM. SARCASM).
I agree with Hawk and #1 that this is going to be closer than a lot of the polls are indicating. I say that because I witnessed the Ventura effect in Minnesota where a wave of typically non-voters put him in office. Voter registration is way up in a number of states and, I'm only guessing here, that could be an indication that Trump has tapped into a segment of the population that hasn't been voting. Of course, it could also be the obverse with a lot of people registering to vote against Trump, but I do think the uptick is due to folks who intend to vote for Trump. That could add a percentage point or two to the Trump vote and in a tight race in a swing state or two (or three), things could tighten up in the electoral vote. I think it's still Hillary's to lose, but I've been in this game long enough to see a lot of odd stuff happen.
I was thinking the other day how this election reminds me of the 1968 election which pitted Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace against each other. Hillary has a Nixonian tinge with a set of Humphrey programs and Trump is Wallace on steroids. I was only 15 then, but I was a political junkie at that age and that election has always lived in my memory. One of the best political biographies I have ever read is Nixon Agonistes by Garry Wills. It's mostly about Nixon, but it touches on the 1968 race. Seeing I'm pretty much all thumbs, I give it ten thumbs up.
I agree with weso that Trump's campaign may be the set-up for a Trump television network if he loses. Roger Ailes is out at Fox and he'd likely relish the opportunity to team up with Trump and create an absolutely wild (and irresponsible) media project.
Paragraph by paragraph on 50's above post.
You didn't miss much. It was a lot of that. Trump was improved by his standards, but as 57 quoted Ezra Klein earlier in the thread, she has mastered the art of baiting him into dumb statements at critical times. Lot of people, particularly in the large media groups, are framing it that his comment about the rigged election was the key moment of the night and will to some huge defeat for him. I agree it was the key moment, but come on. Have any of these people actually been paying attention to this election? First of all, he has said so many things (John McCain, New York Times reporter, Megyn Kelly, Cruz's family, Kahn family, the Indiana judge's Mexican family and on and on and on and on). Then the tape comes out and the accusers, legit or not. And the guy is still here, still standing. How is him saying the system is rigged and not committing to "accepting" the results going to stop him after all the other stuff? A key part of his voting bloc is people who believe the system is rigged against them? He's used race-baiting and xenophobic rhetoric to trigger some of it, but not all of the people voting for him are "deplorables."
It's an extremely narrow road for Trump in the electoral college, but I think he's riding a wave of history and will benefit from huge discontent in this country. Hard to find anyone who's really satisfied, though there are way many factors that go into that before who's president. Still, that's the perception. But a lot of people also seemed resigned to waiting four more years to trying to improve things over putting a potential (being polite here) maniac in the White House. I think you're right the majority of new voters will probably vote Trump, but part of it could be a ton of women registering to vote against him. I still don't sense the enthusiasm that was there to vote for Obama.
I see Trump as a combo of Wallace and Nixon. He actually embraces the Nixon comparison. But if he does win, I think the whole "silent majority" thing will be a reason. I still think a lot of this may hinge on what evangelicals, particularly in these Midwestern states decide to do. If we're to believe that so many stayed home in 2012, I think they could come out this year. There are also probably a whole lot of people who would never publicly say they are voting for Trump but will do so anyway.
If he does lose, there's no way he goes away entirely. It's not in his DNA. A television network or a show with Sean Hannity is not out of the question.
I guess that would depend on which Pope you're talking about, as some of them have been among history's worst scumbags, others really great and everywhere in between. I like the current Pope for the same reason that the far right hate him. I try to separate (and I try to get my students to do this too) the person and the deeds of that person. For example I am NOT a fan of John Adams the man, I simply don't care for him, but I honestly feel that John Adams the president was very good, at a time when it wasn't easy to be president, ie tap dancing on that fine line between keeping the British sort of happy with us, and also keeping the French sort of happy with us, and trying to stand up for our rights to both countries without pissing them off too much. tough job, but Adams did it and did it well IMO.
I love Washington and Jefferson as great Americans, as great founding fathers, etc., but honestly I don't think either was a great president. Washington tried to establish a practice of keeping us out of foreign entanglements and being satisfied with 2 terms. Jefferson did the Louisiana Purchase which was YUGE, but how much of that was skill and how much of it was luck/timing? He did a good job building a navy for our war with the Barbary Pirates but less than 10 years later that same navy proved to be greatly outmatched by the British Men-of-War we faced during the War of 1812.
I like FDR, the New Deal didn't fix the Great Depression, but at least he tried something to help regular Americans instead of falling through his own arse to help the wealthy and big business at all costs like previous presidents had done, including Herbert Hoover, who I actually like other than his total inaction during the first years of said Depression.
I like Lincoln, though I firmly believe he baited the South into starting the actual hostilities of the Civil War, so that he could use military force without looking completely like the bad guy. He threatened to arrest Chief Justice Taney for being, well Roger Taney, who was a complete and total asshat IMO. The thing I like best about Lincoln was that he was really really smart but looked about as smart as your average fence post. This of course caused enemy after enemy to fall into his trap. I think preserving the Union was the right thing to do and getting rid of slavery was definitely the right thing to do, but I really do hate how the North always seems to be put forth as the "good guys" when they were just as bigoted and racist as the South, and even though they didn't use "regular slavery" which was a horrible institution straight from the pits of hell, they used millions of immigrants as "cheap disposable labor" which to me is just about as bad.
I like JFK fairly well, though when you have a dad like his, you can't help but get a little stink on you. All of LBJ's great social triumphs like the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, among others, were all JFK's ideas, he just came along a little too early. JFK also suffered from the old lie of "whatever makes the MIC more money and at the same time preserves the concept of the Truman Doctrine must be a good idea". I feel like when JFK tried to implement another plan that we weren't ready for yet, ie getting along with the Russians, at least well enough to not blow up the planet, even after he made them back down over the Cuban Missile Crisis, was the main thing that got him killed, because "good old boys" like Dulles saw this as a weakness and turned on him.
How's this for a start?
50PoundHead (10-20-2016), Hawk (10-20-2016), jpx7 (10-20-2016)
I agree with the Silent Majority thing on Trump's side. I've just always thought the Clintons skated near the edge like Nixon did. I don't think either of the Clintons are as devious as RMN and have never done anything remotely as destructive, but I always believed Nixon's downfall was more "death by 1,000 cuts" than the whole Watergate thing. He'd been ticking people off since his first Congressional race and Watergate was the icy patch that made him slip off the pile of figuratively dead bodies he had stacked up during his career.
I see this election as being somewhat like HW Bush following Reagan. I think Hillary wins and my guess is she's probably a one-term President unless things improve dramatically. As much as she's acting like a populist, she's a technocratic centrist and that approach could go either way.
I think this election has redefined "silent majority" .
Todays silent majority doesn't attend rallies or listen non stop to talk radio or watch cable news. Is not male centric and is multi cultural.
Going back to the spring when Sen Sanders was holding rallies and attracting thousands and thousands.
Read somewhere at that time from an HRC worker, "yeah, his people attend rallies, ours vote"
My point is, where the rubber meets the road (votes) in 2016, the Silent Majority looks nothing like it did in 1968. Or even 2008-12 for that matter.
this election has boiled down to the Silent Majority vs The Basket of Deplorables
Last edited by 57Brave; 10-20-2016 at 01:48 PM.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1...ol-of-Congress
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
That makes no sense at all, unless mediocrity is your goal. Why do you want to punish people for being financially successful (wealthy)? If two thirds is not enough, how much is enough?
You want to eliminate virtually all of the jobs in America. Brilliant.
OK let's go with your plan and punish who are unsuccessful because they obviously aren't trying and see if we can redistribute the rest of that wealth to the top 10%. As for my goal I'd say it was survival of this nation. Even if your Faux philosophy was correct, which it isn't, it's going to be everyone who suffers if things get any more one sided. Check out the French Revolution if you doubt me, but make sure it's the actual historical truth, not one of those revisionist versions where they talk about all good things coming from French exceptionalism and all bad things coming from that dirty, filthy, lazy, French 3rd estate.
By the way I never mentioned a percentage of fraction for a tax rate. I believe that was you.
I think we should give capitalism a try in this country.
Didn't we try that right up until the banking meltdown of 2007-2009ish?
No
What about 1921-1929?
Sigh... it's sad that the teachers of today actually believe what they do
The federal reserve created the boom/bust cycle in the 20s. They artificially lowered interest rates (sound familiar?) and increased the money supply by 61% in the 20's.
This is not what free market capitalism is. And I assume you know this.
That was tried in The Gilded Age and found wanting. As the people moved from the country to the city, there simply wasn't enough opportunity to keep everyone afloat and the farm economy started its steady descent as an employer then, leaving people with neither capital or cash.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote