Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

2016 Presidential Election Thread Archive


Recommended Posts

If you think American Politics really needs a shake up, because corruption has reach near south American levels, and both parties suck, what going shake things up more?

 

Hillary getting in, when she is pretty much the posterchild for shitty same old politician?

 

Or Trump winning, when he is clearly a clown, even after the majority of the Media, and the leadership of both parties worked to get Clinton in, and the American people still tell them to fuck off?

 

For the people looking at it like this, the more the Media portrays Trump as a nut, the better it works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Jeb Bush  

So DNC, sure was a good idea to back Clinton over Sanders, eh? Clinton is just so much more electable.

[get prepped for some ramblings]    I get more depressed than scared.    Her voting record as a senator isn't good at all(in my opinion) with votes for the Iraq War(and not apologizing for it till

If you think American Politics really needs a shake up, because corruption has reach near south American levels, and both parties suck, what going shake things up more?

 

Hillary getting in, when she is pretty much the posterchild for shitty same old politician?

 

Or Trump winning, when he is clearly a clown, even after the majority of the Media, and the leadership of both parties worked to get Clinton in, and the American people still tell them to fuck off?

 

For the people looking at it like this, the more the Media portrays Trump as a nut, the better it works.

I understand this point of view a bit better.  Unfortunately, I don't think you get much more corrupt than Trump, so I think you are pissing into the wind here.  He donated $100k to the Clinton Foundation. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/aug/28/david-plouffe/yes-donald-trump-donated-100000-clinton-foundation/ We have a Trump Tower in Toronto that Trump has zero interest in because he sold his name to another Real Estate firm. The strong point for Trump is that he knows how to make a deal.  The weak part for Trump is all that he knows how to do is make a deal. So he won't stand for anything. Everything is a deal, to be worked.  2nd Amendment? Lets make a deal. Free Speech? Let's make a deal.

 

Edit: I understand taking a stand on a point and being a single issue voter.  What I don't believe is that Trump honestly won't make a deal on anything if it is in his benefit. If you can convince me that Trump actually has a belief in anything other than Trump and the US dollar you deserve to be an elected representative on a few Senate Subcommittees that interest you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The root of the problem here is with women voters. They're the largest, most reliable block. You lose the woman vote, you lose period, especially with the angry Yam-Person chasing away every other block. Nobody wants to be associated with this except for bloggers and media types who make their money off of the Ouroboros of Outrage. You're going to see a lot of Republicans distance themselves to try to find some kind of save and possibly a boost from it. Hell, short of Hannity, I even see Fox News seeing it as their chance to cut the Donald chain they've been stuck to. I never bought into the "Trump as a Clinton agent" theory but god damn if this isn't starting to convince me (joking). At this point, Republicans only have sub-sets of white males interested in voting for him in any large number, and I'd be genuinely surprised if anyone else even considered to split their votes down-ticket.

 

My guess has always been that Donald doesn't want the presidency. I can't imagine that man wants to participate in four plus years of the hardest civil service known to man for an reason other than what it means for Donald and what Donald's wants. He thought he could get his face out there for promotional purposes like Palin for some self-promotion, but it snowballed. He was getting paid, and found out he could hold meetings in his own locations for some layers of tax benefits. Then he started winning states and realized he could drag it out further. If he didn't win, he could run independent and split the vote like he promised, or tank the general election if he won the primary. What would genuinely happen if he won? Who could he actually pick for appointments, and who would actually accept and be approved? What would diplomatic missions or military briefings look like?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thought, but I believe this election is the first one in which the 22nd amendment actually mattered.  By this I mean if Obama had been allowed to run for a third term, he would have been the first president with a real shot of winning it since FDR.  Eisenhower was the first president prevented from seeking a third term by the 22nd amendment.  That said, I don't think Ike would have sought a third term even if he could have due to health issues and age.  Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were not candidates for a third term for obvious reasons.  Same with Ford and Carter.  Reagan was the next president who actually finished two terms.  His approval ratings were still good at the end of his second term, but its hard to imagine him wanting a third term considering his age.  That said, Reagan probably could have won if he ran a third time. Bush Sr. lost after one term.  Next is Clinton.  He certainly would have wanted a third term, although his sex scandal would have made it rather difficult to do so, despite his relatively high approval rating.  George W Bush's chances of winning a third term were very low after the Iraq war debacle.  Obama is the only president to still have high approval ratings at the end of his second term and to be young enough to be a serious third term candidate.  If he were the one running against Trump instead of Hillary, I don't think this election would even be close.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have doubts about Reagan. Popularity aside, it's pretty much confirmed he was in stages of Alzheimer's during his presidency and pushing that another 4 years into his eighties was probably something he wouldn't have wanted to do. But yeah, I agree he could have probably taken it if he wanted to.

George H.W. was kind of a man out of his time. Unarguably incredibly experienced for the job, he just never knew how to express that what he was doing was right. He was criticized for not dancing on the Berlin Wall, but because he had good foreign relations sense, he realized that he was in a really precarious starting position with the end of the Cold War. I think he would have been at home in earlier time to be left to his work.

 

But he was in an age of growing media coverage into every inane part of a person's life. JFK and LBJ got away with skirt-chasing for a few decades because they didn't have Geraldo barging in to ask them about everything they'd eaten since inauguration and internet bloggers accusing them of having "blowjob walk" in a 6 second clip. George Sr. would probably have gone down as a memorable defense secretary or something, but now he's just this space between two of the most passionate presidencies of the modern era.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have doubts about Reagan. Popularity aside, it's pretty much confirmed he was in stages of Alzheimer's during his presidency and pushing that another 4 years into his eighties was probably something he wouldn't have wanted to do. But yeah, I agree he could have probably taken it if he wanted to.

George H.W. was kind of a man out of his time. Unarguably incredibly experienced for the job, he just never knew how to express that what he was doing was right. He was criticized for not dancing on the Berlin Wall, but because he had good foreign relations sense, he realized that he was in a really precarious starting position with the end of the Cold War. I think he would have been at home in earlier time to be left to his work.

 

But he was in an age of growing media coverage into every inane part of a person's life. JFK and LBJ got away with skirt-chasing for a few decades because they didn't have Geraldo barging in to ask them about everything they'd eaten since inauguration and internet bloggers accusing them of having "blowjob walk" in a 6 second clip. George Sr. would probably have gone down as a memorable defense secretary or something, but now he's just this space between two of the most passionate presidencies of the modern era.

 

Bush Senior was no dummy.  I think history has proven him right regarding Iraq.   In 1990, something had to be done about Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.  Taking the time to assemble an international coalition with UN approval was the right thing to do.  Leaving Saddam in charge was controversial, but very likely the least worst option.  The sanctions regime was a humanitarian nightmare, but still probably not as bad as what has transpired in Iraq over the last 14 years.  At the time, all these people were complaining that he "didn't finish the job."  We have seen that finishing the job carried some pretty hefty consequences.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Random thought, but I believe this election is the first one in which the 22nd amendment actually mattered.  By this I mean if Obama had been allowed to run for a third term, he would have been the first president with a real shot of winning it since FDR.  Eisenhower was the first president prevented from seeking a third term by the 22nd amendment.  That said, I don't think Ike would have sought a third term even if he could have due to health issues and age.  Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were not candidates for a third term for obvious reasons.  Same with Ford and Carter.  Reagan was the next president who actually finished two terms.  His approval ratings were still good at the end of his second term, but its hard to imagine him wanting a third term considering his age.  That said, Reagan probably could have won if he ran a third time. Bush Sr. lost after one term.  Next is Clinton.  He certainly would have wanted a third term, although his sex scandal would have made it rather difficult to do so, despite his relatively high approval rating.  George W Bush's chances of winning a third term were very low after the Iraq war debacle.  Obama is the only president to still have high approval ratings at the end of his second term and to be young enough to be a serious third term candidate.  If he were the one running against Trump instead of Hillary, I don't think this election would even be close.  

With all his problems, I'd still vote for Obama over the trump the gump and the wicket witch. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's HuffPo, which has a Liberal bias, but holy shit. If this ends up being true were talking about a guy who raped a 13 year old being elected to the Presidency.

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

 

"Jane Doe says that Mr. Trump “initiated sexual contact” with her on four occasions in 1994. Since she was thirteen at the time, consent is not an issue. If Mr. Trump had any type sexual contact with her in 1994, it was a crime.

On the fourth incident, she says Mr. Trump tied her to a bed and forcibly raped her, in a “savage sexual attack,” while she pleaded with him to stop. She says Mr. Trump violently struck her in the face. She says that afterward, if she ever revealed what he had done, Mr. Trump threatened that she and her family would be “physically harmed if not killed.” She says she has been in fear of him ever since."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that it's been downplayed because Epstein is hooked up with the power players on both sides.

 

anyhow... From the FARK thread, a bunch of tweets:

 

BNO News @BNONews 9m9 minutes ago
Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, who earlier said he would vote Trump, now says "I cannot and will not vote" for Trump - Montgomery Advertiser

BNO News @BNONews 33m33 minutes ago
Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval says cannot support Trump, calling his behavior "repulsive and unacceptable" for a presidential candidate

BNO News @BNONews 39m39 minutes ago
U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan withdraws his support for Trump, calling for running mate Mike Pence to take over

BNO News @BNONews 45m45 minutes ago
Former presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty withdraws support for Trump, calls him "unsound, uninformed, unhinged and unfit" to be president

BNO News @BNONews 1h1 hour ago
U.S. Congresswoman Ann Wagner withdraws her endorsement for Donald Trump, calls for Governor Pence to take over

BNO News @BNONews 1h1 hour ago
Former CA Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: "For the first time since I became a citizen in 1983, I will not vote for the Republican candidate"

BNO News @BNONews 1h1 hour ago
Kasich: "I will not vote for a nominee who has behaved in a manner that reflects so poorly on our country. Our country deserves better."

BNO News @BNONews 14h14 hours ago
Republican U.S. Senator Mike Lee, who was named by Donald Trump as a possible Supreme Court pick, says "it's time for him to step aside"

BNO News @BNONews 16h16 hours ago
BREAKING: Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz pulls support for Trump, says "I can no longer in good conscience endorse this person"

BNO News @BNONews 17h17 hours ago
BREAKING: Utah Governor Gary Herbert, who had endorsed Donald Trump, says he will no longer vote for him

BNO News @BNONews 18h18 hours ago
Former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman Jr., who had said he would vote for Trump, calls for VP pick Mike Pence to take over - SL Tribune

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kasich's statement from FB.

 

A Statement from Gov. John Kasich
"Nothing that has happened in the last 48 hours is surprising to me or many others. Many people were angry and questioned why I would not endorse Donald Trump or attend the Republican Convention. I’ve long had concerns with Donald Trump that go beyond his temperament. We have substantive policy differences on conservative issues like trade, our relationship with Russia, and the importance of balancing the federal budget. I’ve held out hope that he would change on those disqualifying policy positions, but he has not. I’ve also encouraged him to change his behavior for the better and offer a positive, inclusive vision for our country, but he has not. It's clear that he hasn't changed and has no interest in doing so. As a result, Donald Trump is a man I cannot and should not support. The actions of the last day are disgusting, but that’s not why I reached this decision, it has been an accumulation of his words and actions that many have been warning about. I will not vote for a nominee who has behaved in a manner that reflects so poorly on our country. Our country deserves better."
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Mitt Romney was pretty smart to denounce Trump months ago before it became politically popular. He has set himself up nicely for 2020. He will be the safe pic for republicans, having experience running a campaign and having avoided any trump stigma. And while he couldnt beat obama in 2012, he should have a much weaker opponent in hillary. The republicans will be desperate for a safe viable candidate, Romney can be that guy. And yes, trying to predict an election four years out is pretty silly on my part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Mitt Romney was pretty smart to denounce Trump months ago before it became politically popular. He has set himself up nicely for 2020. He will be the safe pic for republicans, having experience running a campaign and having avoided any trump stigma. And while he couldnt beat obama in 2012, he should have a much weaker opponent in hillary. The republicans will be desperate for a safe viable candidate, Romney can be that guy. And yes, trying to predict an election four years out is pretty silly on my part.

 

The problem is that his campaign was bad, and McCain's was bad and it was mostly to do with the party. Each time they chose awful running mates, ran on terrible platforms, made little effort at sympathy for anything but die-hard Bush supporters, and a whole other mess of bad mistakes. It was so obvious that those two won their primaries against a bunch of spotlight-stealing wackos-of-the-week to pull into the general election as the "safe bet" with no momentum. And even then, it was fairly obvious they weren't allowed to speak from their minds or pick their running mates. Try to tell me with a straight face that McCain would have even considered Palin if it was up to him or that a straight-laced machine man like Romney would have picked the upstart pretty-boy who seriously still presents baby's first budget proposal to Congress. 

 

Obama on the other hand had pure momentum out of the '08 primaries, defeating two Sure Things in 2008, then running against two men emblematic of the useless Congress in 2012. Didn't help that Fox News was so desperate to get something to stick to him, they basically started nullifying any genuine criticisms they could bring up since it got lost or lumped in with the crazy. Remember when everybody when the word "gaffe" got obnoxious for months when talking about Biden and he fucking ate Palin's lunch in a debate

 

Preibus is hard gonna be out. For some reason, he's the first RNC Chairman since Nicholson to serve more than a year or two despite having some light-speed fuckups under his watch. Will probably get replaced by a governor who's either just out of office or has term ending soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...