PDA

View Full Version : is Hillary Clinton still a viable candidate for president?


Kimon
03-02-2015, 09:46 PM
This is a pretty damning mistake on her part. How the hell was this allowed to happen?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0

Terez
03-02-2015, 11:16 PM
Jeb Bush released the private information of hundreds of correspondents from his time as FL governor, and he's still in the game. I suppose some will try to argue that she threatened national security, and maybe she did, but I don't see this being a huge problem for her.

I kind of got excited when I saw the headline. Am disappoint.

Nazbaque
03-03-2015, 02:47 AM
Where is the harm? I always ask this when something is reported as somekind of scandal. Easy enough answers in cases of domestic abuse for example, but there are also cases where the vast majority of answers start with "what if" and this is one of those. It's a "playing with fire" story and certainly not a good thing, but if this is the worst they can get on Hillary she not only has a chance at presidency, but making the top ten. Just look at certain other people the Americans have voted for.

GonzoTheGreat
03-03-2015, 03:24 AM
Out of curiosity: did not a single American journalist ever spot this in the four years that Clinton was in office?

It was a bad mistake by Hillary Clinton and her staff, no doubt about that.
But it is a horrible indictment of the state of American journalism that it didn't come to light years earlier.

Kimon
03-03-2015, 06:41 AM
Out of curiosity: did not a single American journalist ever spot this in the four years that Clinton was in office?

It was a bad mistake by Hillary Clinton and her staff, no doubt about that.
But it is a horrible indictment of the state of American journalism that it didn't come to light years earlier.

This is what I don't get. How did no one notice this until now? How did no one think to point out to her how incredibly damaging to her career this could be, cause let's not kid ourselves, this is a much bigger deal than Benghazi, which was utter nonsense, and an investigation that until this, had produced nothing damaging or embarrassing to Hillary. You'd think that one of the National Security Advisers would have pointed out to her the danger of using non-government email, as would the state department lawyers. I'd still vote for her, if in the general vs any random Republican, but this will give me serious pause in the primary.

Davian93
03-03-2015, 08:34 AM
I dont think this is a show stopper but it sure as hell doesn't help her out.

She's still a better candidate than any of the clownshoe options that the GOP is currently looking at.

Davian93
03-03-2015, 08:42 AM
FWIW, when it comes to NARA record keeping requirements, its completely up to each gov't employee to determine what is considered an official record and what isn't even on their official gov't email. Granted, there is a literal ton of regulations that govern those requirements and all gov't employees take annual training on those requirements but that's all it is. So...as long as those requirements were kept up with (and it sounds like they were), there would be no loss of official Dept of State records from her use of a private email server over gov't email server. Now, of course, there are the security requirements for FOUO and SBU type information that I would imagine she grossly violated by using Gmail or Hotmail or whatever she ended up using but that is more of a slap on the wrist really. Its not like she was discussing classified on such an email server so its not a huge, huge crime.

Awfully stupid though...which is why its interesting its coming out this early in the process rather than them saving it to attack her with it in a year when it would really hurt her. They must be really terrified of her if they are attempting to completely derail her campaign a full 10 months before it needed to even really start.

Davian93
03-03-2015, 09:32 AM
To be fair to Hillary, it doesn't appear she broke any rules by using a personal email in lieu of a gov't one. The rule wasn't put in place until she was leaving office and she has complied with all of the record-keeping requirements that are in place as far as anyone can tell.

Seems once again like much ado about nothing.

Daekyras
03-03-2015, 02:02 PM
Was hillary ever a viable option as president? Her best chance was, I feel, 8 years ago and Obama stole her thunder. Now, the next president will most lilely be from the other side of the fence....so presidential candidate she may still be but not a likely candidate for president....

Terez
03-03-2015, 03:00 PM
I'm not sure the presidency will swing back just yet. The reality in the electoral college all but guarantees that the next president will be another Democrat; either the Republicans or the populace will have to transform a bit to shake up that math. If anyone can screw that up, though, it's Hillary, so we'll see.

Kimon
03-03-2015, 04:44 PM
I'm not sure the presidency will swing back just yet. The reality in the electoral college all but guarantees that the next president will be another Democrat; either the Republicans or the populace will have to transform a bit to shake up that math. If anyone can screw that up, though, it's Hillary, so we'll see.

None of the current crop of Republicans look even remotely presidential, but then neither did the Younger Bush, and he won twice. Maybe this will open the door for Elizabeth Warren. I'd rather vote for her than Hillary anyway.

Davian93
03-03-2015, 05:27 PM
Was hillary ever a viable option as president? Her best chance was, I feel, 8 years ago and Obama stole her thunder. Now, the next president will most lilely be from the other side of the fence....so presidential candidate she may still be but not a likely candidate for president....

If the election were held today, she'd likely win a massive landslide over any GOP candidate. She's the overwhelming favorite right now which is why she's being attacked so much.


To clarify this whole "issue" anyway...the guidance by NARA (national archives & records administration) regarding personal email accounts. The guidance they're trying to say she violated was published in Sept 2013. She resigned as SecState in Feb 2013...SEVEN months before the guidance even came out.

So...again, much like Benghazi, this is much ado about nothing and yet again another pathetic attempt to attack her because they have nothing real with which to attack her.

One interesting thing...State was hacked badly during Wikileaks. None of her emails were part of it due to this private email domain she set up. So there were at least some unintended positives from it. John Kerry, the current SecState (and the first to be SecState during the current guidance) is also the first SecState to use primarily his gov't email for work. So this is so bloody stupid its beyond itself.

yks 6nnetu hing
03-04-2015, 02:51 AM
oh those pesky pesky facts....

Davian93
03-04-2015, 06:42 AM
oh those pesky pesky facts....

The funny thing is that I don't even like Hilldog...remember, I was going to vote for McCain back in 08 just to avoid having her as President. But 8 years later, she looks to be the best of a crappy set of choices (people that have a viable chance at actually winning, not people like Elizabeth Warren). To me, she's far too right wing and conservative. Her husband governed from the Center Right and she was always more conservative than him. Hell, she used to be a Republican back in the day. She's only a Dem through marriage and expediency.

The Left probably hates her more than the Right does but the Left also despises anything the GOP has to offer far, far more right now.

Freaking clownshoes.

Terez
03-04-2015, 01:15 PM
I remember. You were starting threads like every day to bitch about Hillary; the only thing that stopped you was 1) Obama overtaking her and 2) the introduction of Sarah Palin.

Davian93
03-04-2015, 01:46 PM
I remember. You were starting threads like every day to bitch about Hillary; the only thing that stopped you was 1) Obama overtaking her and 2) the introduction of Sarah Palin.

I dont care for her politics...but I'd definitely support her over anyone on the Right at this point.

Nazbaque
03-04-2015, 03:56 PM
I dont care for her politics...but I'd definitely support her over anyone on the Right at this point.

So that's why you always go for Southpaw's throat. You're ashamed of your old behaviour and his similar behaviour is too good a reminder.

Terez
03-04-2015, 04:15 PM
Dav was annoying with all his bitching about Hillary and Palin, but to his credit he always engaged in his own threads and usually made solid complaints about both rather than conspiracy-minded nonsense.

Ozymandias
03-10-2015, 05:34 PM
Is it wrong to want to avoid Hillary at almost all costs just to keep another Clinton out of the White House? I don't trust them and haven't trusted them since Bill's second term. I'm not entirely certain why anyone thinks she's particularly qualified, or in fact anything other than a political weathervane with no real accomplishment to her name.

That being said, keeping most of the crackpot right wing idiots out of the White House is a viable goal in and of itself. If a viable GOP candidate appeared (e.g. McCain but without the incredibly senile decision making) I'd be inclined to vote there.

Kimon
03-10-2015, 06:24 PM
Is it wrong to want to avoid Hillary at almost all costs just to keep another Clinton out of the White House? I don't trust them and haven't trusted them since Bill's second term. I'm not entirely certain why anyone thinks she's particularly qualified, or in fact anything other than a political weathervane with no real accomplishment to her name.


There are two sources of appeal with Hillary - Depending on your particular inclinations the one or the other will have primacy, but for all potential supporters I believe the following are accurate. So order them how you will, but here they are.

-Her name. Bill was BY FAR the greatest president since LBJ and JFK. LBJ was flawed (Vietnam), but still probably the best of the lot since FDR. Since him we have had a collection of disasters (Nixon, Reagan, the Younger Bush) and disappointments (Ford, the Elder Bush, and Obama). Is that really a qualification for her, or just a wish to be able to vote for Bill again? Well she is really bright, was senator from the greatest state in the land, and after that Sec of State. That's a better resume than most. Certainly better than any of the Republicans who might run will have. Will admit, however, that I wouldn't mind being able to vote for Bill again.

-She's a woman, and the first with actual potential for the presidency. I'd personally prefer Elizabeth Warren, but Hillary is still better than most other obvious options.

That being said, keeping most of the crackpot right wing idiots out of the White House is a viable goal in and of itself. If a viable GOP candidate appeared (e.g. McCain but without the incredibly senile decision making) I'd be inclined to vote there.

Non-crackpot Republicans no longer exist. Nelson Rockefeller and Jerry Ford are both dead and so are all the other liberal Republicans. If you're voting Republican your choices are evil, crazy, or evil and crazy.

Edit: Apparently Carter was such a disappointment that I was blocking him from memory.

Terez
03-10-2015, 09:43 PM
Carter cured guinea worm. Best president ever.

Davian93
03-11-2015, 06:35 AM
Carter actually had a lot of positives that got ignored due to the hostage crisis completely derailing the 2nd half of his Presidency. We might look on him a bit more favorably had he not been screwed by that and gotten a second term (that would have coincided with the economic upswing that Reagan got to ride to fame).

Ozymandias
03-11-2015, 03:02 PM
There are two sources of appeal with Hillary - Depending on your particular inclinations the one or the other will have primacy, but for all potential supporters I believe the following are accurate. So order them how you will, but here they are.

-Her name. Bill was BY FAR the greatest president since LBJ and JFK. LBJ was flawed (Vietnam), but still probably the best of the lot since FDR. Since him we have had a collection of disasters (Nixon, Reagan, the Younger Bush) and disappointments (Ford, the Elder Bush, and Obama). Is that really a qualification for her, or just a wish to be able to vote for Bill again? Well she is really bright, was senator from the greatest state in the land, and after that Sec of State. That's a better resume than most. Certainly better than any of the Republicans who might run will have. Will admit, however, that I wouldn't mind being able to vote for Bill again.

You’ll have to explain why the philanderer who perjured himself and disgraced the office he held was the “greatest president BY FAR” since LBJ or JFK (not sure why you think either of them are so great, either). If you are going to consider Clinton a great president, you have to include Nixon in there as well. And, as you say, whatever her husband has done, has nothing to do with Hillary’s qualifications.

Hillary has been shown to be a blatant, vindictive demagogue (as anyone who paid attention to her 2008 primary campaign can’t help but see), and some of her actions early on in Bill’s first term bear suspicious resemblance to some of the personal vendettas Palin wallowed in as Governor of Alaska. She may very well be competent, but so is Jeb Bush; you can disagree, but I would think on the whole being the chief executive of a large, multi-ethnic state with a substantial economy to manage is a better qualification for being POTUS than being the constant second fiddle to either a senior Senator (Schumer) or more competent politician (Bill Clinton, Barack Obama). What experience does Hillary have in making executive level decisions? None.


-She's a woman, and the first with actual potential for the presidency. I'd personally prefer Elizabeth Warren, but Hillary is still better than most other obvious options.

This isn't a qualification.

Non-crackpot Republicans no longer exist. Nelson Rockefeller and Jerry Ford are both dead and so are all the other liberal Republicans. If you're voting Republican your choices are evil, crazy, or evil and crazy.

Again... Jeb Bush? Supports immigration reform that doesn't begin and end with the word "deportation", is flexible on education, and overall doesn't seem like a complete ideologue. Not a religious nut.

Hillary's appeals, for you, are the equally unimportant matters of her sex and her name. Jeb Bush, at least, only has the handicap of having one of those be an issue.

Kimon
03-11-2015, 04:12 PM
You’ll have to explain why the philanderer who perjured himself and disgraced the office he held was the “greatest president BY FAR” since LBJ or JFK (not sure why you think either of them are so great, either). If you are going to consider Clinton a great president, you have to include Nixon in there as well. And, as you say, whatever her husband has done, has nothing to do with Hillary’s qualifications.


I don't care about the Monica thing, any more than about the fact that other presidents (like FDR, JFK, and many others) also cheated on their wives. Being faithful to your wife has no bearing on your qualifications and capabilities for being president. Beyond that a distinction needs to be made. My calling him by far the greatest since LBJ need not indicate much more than the utter lack of competition for that designation, which is what I pointed out by breaking the others into those two less than exemplary categories. As for your denigration of LBJ. Vietnam was a disaster, but it was one from which he attempted to extract us before that attempt was sabotaged by Nixon. And while Vietnam is still a very black mark on his record, it does not obscure some truly praiseworthy legislation that was achieved during his presidency - the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, Gun Control. But for Vietnam only hardened partisans would dare deny that he deserved a place alongside the Roosevelts and Lincoln as one of the greatest presidents this nation has ever produced. How you could possibly compare Nixon's legacy to LBJ's is alarming.

Hillary has been shown to be a blatant, vindictive demagogue (as anyone who paid attention to her 2008 primary campaign can’t help but see), and some of her actions early on in Bill’s first term bear suspicious resemblance to some of the personal vendettas Palin wallowed in as Governor of Alaska. She may very well be competent, but so is Jeb Bush; you can disagree, but I would think on the whole being the chief executive of a large, multi-ethnic state with a substantial economy to manage is a better qualification for being POTUS than being the constant second fiddle to either a senior Senator (Schumer) or more competent politician (Bill Clinton, Barack Obama). What experience does Hillary have in making executive level decisions? None.

I'm often left wondering if Republicans really understand what this word means. Ted Cruz is a demagogue. McCarthy was a demagogue. What exactly has Hillary ever done that could be considered demagogic? Is it just the health care initiative attempted during Bill's presidency? Why exactly is it that Republicans hate health care so much? If socialism is so evil, why are social security and medicare so popular? The demagoguery has been by the other side vilifying socialism.

This isn't a qualification.

I gave her qualifications. Copying another sentence and pasting that instead doesn't alter the fact that I mentioned that she served both as Senator of New York and Secretary of State. She isn't just a former first lady riding her husbands coattails.

Again... Jeb Bush? Supports immigration reform that doesn't begin and end with the word "deportation", is flexible on education, and overall doesn't seem like a complete ideologue. Not a religious nut.

Jeb Bush might seem progressive compared to his current competitors on the right, but no one would confuse him with Nelson Rockefeller. When a Republican declares that he is pro-choice, believes in evolution and global warming, supports gun control and domestic spending and universal health care, and is openly agnostic - that's a Republican I would happily support. Until that day I will continue voting for the lesser of two evils rather than the socialists that I would prefer to vote for.

Ozymandias
03-11-2015, 05:14 PM
I gave her qualifications. Copying another sentence and pasting that instead doesn't alter the fact that I mentioned that she served both as Senator of New York and Secretary of State. She isn't just a former first lady riding her husbands coattails.

No, you didn't. You gave the reasons she's "appealing". The qualifications you stated are not really anything of the sort. What legislation has she sponsored that you think is groundbreaking? What policies or stands as SoS did she take which you think were honorable? We've had all sorts of sleazeballs in positions of high office in this country; merely being a Senator isn't an indication of ability as much as the credulousness and occasionally, bigotry, of the American public.

I don't care about the Monica thing, any more than about the fact that other presidents (like FDR, JFK, and many others) also cheated on their wives. Being faithful to your wife has no bearing on your qualifications and capabilities for being president.

I agree. But he also perjured himself. That is an absolutely enormous black mark against him. To enact a failed policy or have a socially or economically regressive platform is one thing, because at the very least there is a case to be made that people support that, and such is the point of democracy (within limits, I agree). To lie under oath is unforgivable.

And in any case, what else did he do, exactly, that was so great? I'll give him some credit for a nearly balanced budget. However, his intervention to prevent an attempted genocide in Bosnia was extremely delayed, and non-existent in Rwanda.

Other than that... yeah, drawing a blank. He started Don't Ask, Don't Tell, signed DOMA, refused to take decisive action against terrorists in Sudan and Afghanistan.

Clinton had the extreme good fortune to be President during a time of unprecedented economic expansion, as a blossoming technology sector began to increase economic efficiency across the board. He had no major foreign crises because the Soviet Union had already fallen and capitalism and America were perceived to be triumphant (end of history, and all that) on a domestic and international stage. But again, when it comes to what he did, rather than what happened while he was in office, is what I'm curious about.

Jeb Bush might seem progressive compared to his current competitors on the right, but no one would confuse him with Nelson Rockefeller. When a Republican declares that he is pro-choice, believes in evolution and global warming, supports gun control and domestic spending and universal health care, and is openly agnostic - that's a Republican I would happily support. Until that day I will continue voting for the lesser of two evils rather than the socialists that I would prefer to vote for.

Right... but that isn't a Republican. You're just saying you'd support a liberal who terms him or herself a Republican. And, as much as I disagree with the idea, a very very large portion of this country doesn't support gun control, wants fiscal restraint, believes in a God, and thinks abortion is murder. And frankly, they may not be wrong on any of those. Jeb Bush has every right to want to represent that (approximate) half of the country. And your beliefs on the flip side probably seem equally inflexible to conservatives.

What exactly has Hillary ever done that could be considered demagogic?

I take issue with the entire tone of her early primary campaign in 2008, in which she employed her husband as a proxy to try and make race an issue and portray Obama as the "black" candidate. I don't see how it wasn't demagogic. Perhaps not to the same extent as birthers or Tea Partiers or whatever... but again, just because one is worse, doesn't mean both aren't bad

Kimon
03-11-2015, 06:34 PM
No, you didn't. You gave the reasons she's "appealing". The qualifications you stated are not really anything of the sort. What legislation has she sponsored that you think is groundbreaking? What policies or stands as SoS did she take which you think were honorable? We've had all sorts of sleazeballs in positions of high office in this country; merely being a Senator isn't an indication of ability as much as the credulousness and occasionally, bigotry, of the American public.


If being a two-term senator and Secretary of State aren't qualifications, then what exactly besides his name is a qualification for Jeb Bush? And regarding his tenure as governor of Florida, of what exactly should he be proud? School vouchers? Stand your ground? 21 executions? Terri's Law? These are all indictments on his decision making.

I agree. But he also perjured himself. That is an absolutely enormous black mark against him. To enact a failed policy or have a socially or economically regressive platform is one thing, because at the very least there is a case to be made that people support that, and such is the point of democracy (within limits, I agree). To lie under oath is unforgivable.

He should have handled this better, but there is a reason why he was more popular at the conclusion of that whole nonsense. No one cared except the crazies on the right. We weren't disgusted by what Bill did. We were disgusted that the Republicans were wasting time and money investigating and then trying to prosecute him for being evasive about the fact that he had cheated on his wife.

And in any case, what else did he do, exactly, that was so great? I'll give him some credit for a nearly balanced budget. However, his intervention to prevent an attempted genocide in Bosnia was extremely delayed, and non-existent in Rwanda.

I wouldn't have gone into Rwanda either. Nor would I send troops to deal with Boko Haram. Both were (are in the case of Boko Haram) problems for Africa to handle. Not us.

Right... but that isn't a Republican. You're just saying you'd support a liberal who terms him or herself a Republican. And, as much as I disagree with the idea, a very very large portion of this country doesn't support gun control, wants fiscal restraint, believes in a God, and thinks abortion is murder. And frankly, they may not be wrong on any of those. Jeb Bush has every right to want to represent that (approximate) half of the country. And your beliefs on the flip side probably seem equally inflexible to conservatives.

What I described was basically like an agnostic version of Teddy Roosevelt or Nelson Rockefeller. Both were Republicans, both were liberals. The party has changed quite a bit.

Davian93
03-11-2015, 08:29 PM
Jeb is his own person and he's not his brother or father (who was actually a pretty good President...better than his idiot son at least)...he's his own person which is why every single one of his advisors is from his brother's former circle of people.

Yup, no way he'd be another Dubya.


On Clinton, he perjured himself on a question that should never have been asked...and it was a pure pathetic witch hunt by a pathetic GOP that simply doesn't handle losing at all and hasn't since 1992. The same idiot mentality that brought us Ken Starr and the whitewater, Lewinsky, etc investigations has given us over a dozen Benghazi investigations and every single other idiotic investigation that Issa and the GOP conducted wasting taxpayer money to create a scandal where none existed. Hmm...maybe if we vote to repeal Obamacare again or have another investigation of Benghazi, we can get stuff done!!!


Its pathetic.

Frenzy
03-11-2015, 09:56 PM
318 million people in this country and the best we can come up with are Hillary & Jeb, a pair of bad sequels that make Highlander 2 look like Godfather 2.

We're fooked.

Nazbaque
03-12-2015, 02:43 AM
318 million people in this country and the best we can come up with are Hillary & Jeb, a pair of bad sequels that make Highlander 2 look like Godfather 2.

We're fooked.

Well the unofficial title is "The Number 1 Scapegoat of USA". It takes a certain kind of idiot to even want the job.

GonzoTheGreat
03-12-2015, 04:59 AM
318 million people in this country and the best we can come up with are Hillary & Jeb, a pair of bad sequels that make Highlander 2 look like Godfather 2.
Hey, you also gave us Star Wars 2.

Nazbaque
03-12-2015, 05:09 AM
Hey, you also gave us Star Wars 2.

Now Gonzo that one was all Lucas.

Davian93
03-12-2015, 07:44 AM
318 million people in this country and the best we can come up with are Hillary & Jeb, a pair of bad sequels that make Highlander 2 look like Godfather 2.

We're fooked.

I love that I basically get to base my vote on hating Hillary slightly less than I hate the Bush dynasty and entire GOP. Woohoo for Democracy!

Terez
03-12-2015, 09:22 AM
I don't know that I really hate any of them but I'm certainly not happy about the options this round. I can't help hoping that Hillary decides not to run and Elizabeth Warren feels obligated to step in because of that. Warren is far from perfect but she could be amazing with a good team. Better than Obama, I think (though he is far from the failure the center-right makes him out to be, forget the crazies).

Davian93
03-12-2015, 09:28 AM
I don't know that I really hate any of them but I'm certainly not happy about the options this round. I can't help hoping that Hillary decides not to run and Elizabeth Warren feels obligated to step in because of that. Warren is far from perfect but she could be amazing with a good team. Better than Obama, I think (though he is far from the failure the center-right makes him out to be, forget the crazies).

On most political spectrums, Obama would be considered the Center-Right....

Its the Right and Far Right that are destroying him on a daily basis.

FWIW, Both Clintons are Center-Right politicians too...a big part of how Clinton won was to skew to the Right and force the GOP to go further Right and lose the center of the electorate. We dont have a true liberal/left-wing anymore.

Terez
03-12-2015, 09:34 AM
Center-Republican then, such as it is.

Davian93
03-12-2015, 09:56 AM
Center-Republican then, such as it is.

So Far Right then? Right now, the GOP has basically a Far Right wing and a Fascist Right wing to their party. There are no moderate Republicans in major office anymore. The Dems are basically a Center Right and Center party and the Liberal Wing of American Politics consists of Bernie Sanders with Elizabeth Warren in the Center Left position between him and the rest of the Dem party essentially.

Ozymandias
03-18-2015, 10:05 AM
If being a two-term senator and Secretary of State aren't qualifications, then what exactly besides his name is a qualification for Jeb Bush? And regarding his tenure as governor of Florida, of what exactly should he be proud? School vouchers? Stand your ground? 21 executions? Terri's Law? These are all indictments on his decision making.

Merely holding an office is not a qualification. And if it was, Jeb Bush has the superior claim to experience in an executive position. My question was, what has Hillary done with those positions that makes you such a believer? Strom Thurmond and Joseph McCarthy were both long time US Senators as well, and neither of them were qualified to bag groceries. There is a strong, strong case to be made that Hillary was elected on the strength of her husband’s name, much like you’d probably (rightly) point out that Jeb Bush is running on a family name.

He should have handled this better, but there is a reason why he was more popular at the conclusion of that whole nonsense. No one cared except the crazies on the right. We weren't disgusted by what Bill did. We were disgusted that the Republicans were wasting time and money investigating and then trying to prosecute him for being evasive about the fact that he had cheated on his wife.

No, there is no “he should have handled this better”. He lied. Under oath. There is no excuse making for that. I don’t care, at all, what you think about the appropriateness of the question. And mind you, the idea that the President of the United States might be taking advantage of (and there is no other way to put it) junior White House staffers is extraordinarily relevant. But even if it wasn’t, even if the question was about his masturbatory habits or something truly irrelevant, it does not excuse a lie under oath. Nothing expunges that, just like nothing Nixon did (and he had some notable diplomatic successes) will ever expunge the fact that he illegally wire tapped political opponents.

I wouldn't have gone into Rwanda either. Nor would I send troops to deal with Boko Haram. Both were (are in the case of Boko Haram) problems for Africa to handle. Not us.

Fine. Your opinions are quite obviously your own, but I think there is a moral imperative to prevent genocide. History is generally on the side of interventionists in those instances. Would have been truly wonderful to allow Saddam to hold Kuwait, or Hitler, Europe. I see Clinton’s vacillation on these issues as a black mark. He seemed perfectly willing to deploy troops to Haiti in the same time period, so it’s not as if he was against intervention in general. He just didn’t like intervening where he didn’t see a plus mark for the US in it. Which is debatably a good thing, but it’s that sort of Kissinger-esque politicial mindset which has caused a vast number of the political problems the US has today in the foreign policy sphere.

Davian93
03-18-2015, 10:27 AM
Nothing expunges that, just like nothing Nixon did (and he had some notable diplomatic successes) will ever expunge the fact that he illegally wire tapped political opponents.


"When the President does it, it's not illegal."


That's a legit rationale, right?

GonzoTheGreat
03-18-2015, 10:36 AM
I see Clinton’s vacillation on these issues as a black mark. He seemed perfectly willing to deploy troops to Haiti in the same time period, so it’s not as if he was against intervention in general.
But Haiti was planning to enforce some kind of minimum wage; if that had been allowed then they would have gone Communist next, and before you knew it Texas would have followed. Then what?

Davian93
03-18-2015, 11:35 AM
But Haiti was planning to enforce some kind of minimum wage; if that had been allowed then they would have gone Communist next, and before you knew it Texas would have followed. Then what?

The US has always and will likely always continue to consider the Caribbean and Latin America to be our backyard and we are more willing to clean up messes and impose our will in our own backyard than in the bloody jungles of the Congo River basin.

Ozymandias
03-18-2015, 11:50 AM
The US has always and will likely always continue to consider the Caribbean and Latin America to be our backyard and we are more willing to clean up messes and impose our will in our own backyard than in the bloody jungles of the Congo River basin.

Fine, but that isn't an ethical or even really geopolitically speaking an excuse. If Clinton was right to ignore Rwanda because it didn't impact US interests, then he was wrong to intervene in Haiti.

And, mind you, he ordered missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan. So the idea that Clinton was uninterested in taking unilateral foreign action or was opposed to it on philosophic grounds, which might be defensible, is demonstrable bunk. He was concerned with scoring easy political points for low-cost attacks on targets of debatable value, and uninterested in helping save hundreds of thousands of lives in a genocidal orgy of death in Rwanda, which he didn't seem to think would help his public polling.

I think our greatest chief executives are the ones who did what was right, regardless of public opinion, trusting that the implicit morality of their action will validate them in time. Clinton was not one of those Presidents.

Ozymandias
03-18-2015, 11:52 AM
On Clinton, he perjured himself on a question that should never have been asked...and it was a pure pathetic witch hunt by a pathetic GOP that simply doesn't handle losing at all and hasn't since 1992. The same idiot mentality that brought us Ken Starr and the whitewater, Lewinsky, etc investigations has given us over a dozen Benghazi investigations and every single other idiotic investigation that Issa and the GOP conducted wasting taxpayer money to create a scandal where none existed. Hmm...maybe if we vote to repeal Obamacare again or have another investigation of Benghazi, we can get stuff done!!!


Its pathetic.

Frankly, the fact that he ended up perjuring himself almost validates the question. But ignoring the questionable logic of the previous statement, I don’t care what they asked him. He perjured himself. It takes a blind stubbornness as bad as what you are complaining about to just brush that aside. And for the record, he was investigated over it as part of a harassment lawsuit, in case you’ve forgotten. So it wasn’t some mindless attempt to discredit the a Democratic President. It was merely another step in an ongoing case regarding Clinton’s behavior towards female subordinates, which in the most optimistic and pro-Clinton view possible, was highly inappropriate and might possibly have been criminal. As for the Whitewater scandal, it isn’t even remotely comparable to the idiocy over Benghazi. High ranking state officials were convicted over Whitewater and there were legitimate allegations against the Clintons, so I don’t see any reason we should just discard it as baseless. They were acquitted, so we move on. But it wasn’t a witch hunt. It wasn’t an idiot mentality. A crime was committed and they were implicated. To argue that doesn’t warrant at least an investigation is outrageous.

Davian93
03-18-2015, 12:11 PM
Fine, but that isn't an ethical or even really geopolitically speaking an excuse. If Clinton was right to ignore Rwanda because it didn't impact US interests, then he was wrong to intervene in Haiti.

I wasn't making an excuse for him, I was merely explaining the rationale.

And, mind you, he ordered missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan. So the idea that Clinton was uninterested in taking unilateral foreign action or was opposed to it on philosophic grounds, which might be defensible, is demonstrable bunk. He was concerned with scoring easy political points for low-cost attacks on targets of debatable value, and uninterested in helping save hundreds of thousands of lives in a genocidal orgy of death in Rwanda, which he didn't seem to think would help his public polling.

Those attacks were to attempt to kill people that had directly attacked us...legit rationale in his eyes to go after them. Imagine had we killed OBL in those strikes...how much different would the world be today?

To be fair to him on Rwanda, there was literally ZERO support on either side of the aisle for such an intervention. He would have been crucified for attempting one. It was much the same as FDR not engaging Hitler or Japan prior to Pearl Harbor.

I think our greatest chief executives are the ones who did what was right, regardless of public opinion, trusting that the implicit morality of their action will validate them in time. Clinton was not one of those Presidents.

Examples? I mean outside of maybe Lincoln during the Civil War, what you suggest almost never happens. And even he had very strong support among his fellow Republicans for his policies there.

During the Clinton years, we were fat, happy and lazy as a country and we were enjoying the peace dividend after the Cold War. There was very little interest in any foreign interventions. Bosnia took years to get any support and even then it was because we couldn't ignore it any longer. Somalia was a debacle which affected that sort of thinking as did the Powell Doctrine of "Go Big or Go Home" when it comes to interventions. For Rwanda, you would have been talking about hundreds of thousands of troops in a hostile environment far, far away from any of our staging areas.

Again, I'm not really making any excuses for our policies during the Clinton years but he was hardly alone in his line of thought either at the time or compared to other presidents.

Ozymandias
03-20-2015, 11:11 AM
Those attacks were to attempt to kill people that had directly attacked us...legit rationale in his eyes to go after them. Imagine had we killed OBL in those strikes...how much different would the world be today?

I am not saying there was no justification for the missile strikes. There was. My point was that he was only interested in intervention so far as he could do it without risking his own popularity at home.

Examples? I mean outside of maybe Lincoln during the Civil War, what you suggest almost never happens. And even he had very strong support among his fellow Republicans for his policies there.


Roosevelt was actively involved in supporting the Allied war effort and was doing everything in his power to drive the US towards war. And no, it doesn't happen often. Which is why not many chief executives get the chance to be described as "great". Mediocre is the byword, and that includes Clinton.

During the Clinton years, we were fat, happy and lazy as a country and we were enjoying the peace dividend after the Cold War. There was very little interest in any foreign interventions. Bosnia took years to get any support and even then it was because we couldn't ignore it any longer.

Right. This isn't a plus mark in Clinton's column either. It is yet another example of him (and to be fair, its not solely his fault) dropping the ball when it comes to exerting American hegemony to make the world a better place.

Somalia was a debacle which affected that sort of thinking as did the Powell Doctrine of "Go Big or Go Home" when it comes to interventions

Was it? There were what? Two dozen American casualties? They saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Maybe it was mismanaged, and one can debate the strategic value of what essentially turned into a manhunt for whatever that warlord's name was, but "debacle" is a strong word.

For Rwanda, you would have been talking about hundreds of thousands of troops in a hostile environment far, far away from any of our staging areas.

No, I don't think you would. These weren't terrorists as we think of them today. They were ordinary people wielding machetes and small arms. A couple of safe zones in Rwanda protected by US or UN armed forces would have saved countless lives. And the Hutus weren't fighting their way through a few thousand heavily armed soldiers.

Circling back, my generic point is that I am not so sure that Clinton achieved anything all that impressive in his time in office. And it doesn't sound like anyone is coming up with anything to refute that. We have this rosy view of Clinton because he was personable, because George W Bush was such an abject disaster, and because Clinton came out looking somewhat like a martyr after the (totally deserved) impeachment proceedings.

Terez
03-20-2015, 11:41 AM
For the record, I am not a big fan of the Clinton presidency. The main thing he brought to the table was electability. When he was president, I considered myself a Republican, so that might have something to do with it, but it's hard for me to see how he was such a great president. He represents the shift to the right in the Democratic Party that came as a response to the Reagan neoliberal fervor; that shift was necessary to get campaign money, and Clinton was all about it. So it's great that he won and accomplished a few things that would have been impossible under a Republican administration, but it came at a pretty huge cost to the liberal movement. And where did Clinton's political pragmatism come from? Maybe his ambitious wife, once the president of the College Republicans at Wellesley?

Yeah, not excited about 2016.

Southpaw2012
03-27-2015, 09:31 PM
It was revealed today that Clinton wiped her whole server. What a surprise!

GonzoTheGreat
03-28-2015, 05:02 AM
It was revealed today that Clinton wiped her whole server. What a surprise!
That's American politics for you. We still haven't heard what Cheney discussed with the energy companies when they were plotting the invasion of Iraq, either, have we?

If you want politicians who actually value openness and honesty, then vote for those who practice it. As long as you only vote for those who pay it lip service, you can't expect to get any different results from what you are getting now.

Davian93
03-28-2015, 08:42 AM
It was revealed today that Clinton wiped her whole server. What a surprise!

After everything was turned over? OMG!?!?!


If she hadn't wiped it, the GOP would merely go "Why is she keeping State Dept emails as a private citizen...THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!"


You see, this is what happens when you constantly cry wolf...nobody gives a damn even during the times where you might have a legitimate criticism.


Is next week another Benghazi investigation, Bergdahl again? etc?

I mean, I'd like to keep track for my own purposes.

GonzoTheGreat
03-28-2015, 08:49 AM
Is next week another Benghazi investigation, Bergdahl again? etc?

I mean, I'd like to keep track for my own purposes.
Maybe they'll spend some time investigating the Terry Schiavo case, before eventually concluding that, for legal reasons, it can't be positively blamed on Obama.

Southpaw2012
03-28-2015, 10:28 AM
That's American politics for you. We still haven't heard what Cheney discussed with the energy companies when they were plotting the invasion of Iraq, either, have we?

If you want politicians who actually value openness and honesty, then vote for those who practice it. As long as you only vote for those who pay it lip service, you can't expect to get any different results from what you are getting now.

No but we did get confirmation from left leaning New York Times that Saddam Hussein had WMD's.

Southpaw2012
03-28-2015, 10:30 AM
After everything was turned over? OMG!?!?!


If she hadn't wiped it, the GOP would merely go "Why is she keeping State Dept emails as a private citizen...THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!"


You see, this is what happens when you constantly cry wolf...nobody gives a damn even during the times where you might have a legitimate criticism.


Is next week another Benghazi investigation, Bergdahl again? etc?

I mean, I'd like to keep track for my own purposes.


When you have an administration that continues time and time again to lie and break the law, it's very reasonable to call them out on it. For the sake of where we are headed, more people need to call them out on it.

Southpaw2012
03-28-2015, 10:38 AM
And I love when liberals get mad at the criticism aimed at their lord and savior Barack Obama. There seems to be some awful short term memory from when Bush was in office and all the criticism (both right and wrong) that he received. I will never say he was a great president nor will I say he was even that good of one, but those who have paid attention with an open mind can admit that it was nowhere near as corrupt and pathetic as what we have now. The world laughs at us now, especially when it comes to foreign policy. You honestly think the Obama administrations foreign policy is good? An administration who lied about Benghazi to get re-elected; lied about the stability of al-Qaeda to pull troops out; who lied about how serious ISIS is to be able to keep troops out; who continues to negotiate with a country who chants death to America every day; who hates and tries to undermine our only true ally in the Middle-East (Israel); who threatened Assad in front of the world and then didn't do shit. The list is endless.

Kimon
03-28-2015, 10:40 AM
No but we did get confirmation from left leaning New York Times that Saddam Hussein had WMD's.

You need to get in the habit of providing links when you make these assertions.

This must be what you are referring to, but read the actual article, not just misrepresentations of it. It doesn't support the claim that you are making.

The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush insisted that Mr. Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims.
Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.
All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

Here's the full article, from last October...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Davian93
03-28-2015, 10:55 AM
No but we did get confirmation from left leaning New York Times that Saddam Hussein had WMD's.

Actually, if you had any reading comprehension, you would have understood that that NY Times article basically destroyed the entire Bush administration's premise for invasion as they ONLY found outdated warheads from the 1980s that weren't even functional. But then, you already knew that as we had this discussion 6 months ago when you first tried to post it as a "smoking gun".

GonzoTheGreat
03-28-2015, 11:11 AM
Actually, if you had any reading comprehension, you would have understood that that NY Times article basically destroyed the entire Bush administration's premise for invasion as they ONLY found outdated warheads from the 1980s that weren't even functional.
Look on the upside: at least some of those warheads may have come from caches that had been under control of the weapons inspectors, and guarded for them by the Iraqi Army, until the USA chased both off. Then, instead of guarding the stuff themselves, the US troops allowed Al Qaeda (or whoever did it) to steal the things and use them to kill Americans. Actually, I'm having some trouble finding the upside of this. Can someone please explain it to me?

Ozymandias
03-28-2015, 04:12 PM
And I love when liberals get mad at the criticism aimed at their lord and savior Barack Obama.

Only the unjustified criticism

nowhere near as corrupt and pathetic as what we have now.

You'll have to prove the corruption in the Obama administration. Whereas, by contrast, you have to look at the Scooter Libby pardon as the grossest form of executive corruption.

The world laughs at us now, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

No, they don't. Source please.

You honestly think the Obama administrations foreign policy is good? An administration who lied about Benghazi to get re-elected;

I think the first 56 or so Benghazi hearings pretty conclusively proved that they didn't lie about Benghazi. When an investigation predisposed to find fault doesn't actually manage to (and then fails again half a hundred more times), I'll take that as conclusive evidence.

lied about the stability of al-Qaeda to pull troops out;

Al Qaeda hasn't had much impact in Iraq, buddy.

who lied about how serious ISIS is to be able to keep troops out;

ISIS was more or less destroyed when the pull out began. He didn't lie. Circumstances change.

And even if that isn't the case, there is a strong argument to be that it isn't relevant. He campaigned on the premise that we should be pulling out of Iraq. It isn't a stretch to say it was one of the foundational issues of his election. To not do so would be the repudiate the views of the majority of the country and elected him to do just that.

who continues to negotiate with a country who chants death to America every day;

As supposed to what? Why is this somehow a bad thing? Since when did negotiation with other countries turn into a negative?

who hates and tries to undermine our only true ally in the Middle-East (Israel)

Wait, since when does he hate Israel? Firstly, there needs to be a long, honest conversation about our relationship with Israel and what we've allowed them to do in the interest of preserving that relationship. And secondly, it was Netanyahu who thumbed his nose at the President, not the other way around. Its almost bizarre, the level of cognitive dissonance one needs to have to construe that relationship as one in which Obama undermines Israel.

who threatened Assad in front of the world and then didn't do shit. The list is endless.

The list seems to have ended....

Ozymandias
03-28-2015, 04:13 PM
Look on the upside: at least some of those warheads may have come from caches that had been under control of the weapons inspectors, and guarded for them by the Iraqi Army, until the USA chased both off. Then, instead of guarding the stuff themselves, the US troops allowed Al Qaeda (or whoever did it) to steal the things and use them to kill Americans. Actually, I'm having some trouble finding the upside of this. Can someone please explain it to me?

Don't make me get into this again. There is a whole thread on it.

Ozymandias
04-28-2015, 10:37 PM
Just curious to reopen this, given the many recent developments in the Clinton campaign.

As someone whose primary justification for not voting McCain 08 (though I probably would've voted Obama anyway) was the obvious early-onset senility displayed by his lack of vetting of Sarah Palin and the doubt that cast on his overall decision-making ability, I can't help but get the shadow of the same feeling about Hillary. Not the bribery scandal - that should have been perfectly foreseeable to anyone with any knowledge of the Clintons. But the whole email thing... I don't know. It isn't as though Hillary hasn't had perfectly obvious aspirations to the Presidency since before Obama's election, so why anyone would act in so cavalier a manner in regards to something so simple, and something so easily used as ammunition, blows the mind.

GonzoTheGreat
04-29-2015, 03:35 AM
Maybe it is part of her master plan. She may have been involved in some far worse shenanigans, which get completely overlooked because she cleverly leaked "mail-gate" to the Republicans.

Davian93
04-29-2015, 06:22 AM
Just curious to reopen this, given the many recent developments in the Clinton campaign.

As someone whose primary justification for not voting McCain 08 (though I probably would've voted Obama anyway) was the obvious early-onset senility displayed by his lack of vetting of Sarah Palin and the doubt that cast on his overall decision-making ability, I can't help but get the shadow of the same feeling about Hillary. Not the bribery scandal - that should have been perfectly foreseeable to anyone with any knowledge of the Clintons. But the whole email thing... I don't know. It isn't as though Hillary hasn't had perfectly obvious aspirations to the Presidency since before Obama's election, so why anyone would act in so cavalier a manner in regards to something so simple, and something so easily used as ammunition, blows the mind.

Other than the fact that the bribery scandal has zero basis in reality and even Foxnews called the author of that book a wackadoo.

But yeah. The Clintons have long been the boogymen of the Right so they are absolutely terrified of her running.

Ironic given that she's further Right than her Center Right husband was. Hell, she was a member of the GOP until she married Bill.

eht slat meit
04-29-2015, 11:25 AM
Ironic given that she's further Right than her Center Right husband was. Hell, she was a member of the GOP until she married Bill.

Both of those pieces of information are enough to make me reconsider voting for her if I were so inclined.

Davian93
04-29-2015, 11:44 AM
Both of those pieces of information are enough to make me reconsider voting for her if I were so inclined.

I can't stand her but I will vote for her if she's the Dems candidate.

Given the complete clusterfvck that is the GOP for the last 20 years.

One cool thing...my Senator is announcing his candidacy for President tomorrow. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is the only true Democratic-Sociolist to hold major office in the United States and he is a true progressive. He has my vote in the primary (and general if he runs as an Independent which he wont do) regardless of his candidacy not having a shot in hell.

eht slat meit
04-29-2015, 11:52 AM
I can't stand her but I will vote for her if she's the Dems candidate.

Clinton lost any future votes from me the second she bought into the same war-machine Romney is part of. If she's the only thing that the Democratic party can offer, they have become a complete failure as a party on the same level as the GOP.

That said, I'm willing to consider others they might offer up if this doesn't be go the direction of an attempt to force Clinton as the sole nominee that it appears to be.

Worst case scenario, I vote third-party. That's a throw-away vote, but I sense a lot of potential pleasure to be had in the masses of one losing party or the other whining at "people like me" for causing their party to lose.

Because the truth is that they caused it.

Davian93
04-29-2015, 11:58 AM
Clinton lost any future votes from me the second she bought into the same war-machine Romney is part of. If she's the only thing that the Democratic party can offer, they have become a complete failure as a party on the same level as the GOP.

That said, I'm willing to consider others they might offer up if this doesn't be go the direction of an attempt to force Clinton as the sole nominee that it appears to be.

Worst case scenario, I vote third-party. That's a throw-away vote, but I sense a lot of potential pleasure to be had in the masses of one losing party or the other whining at "people like me" for causing their party to lose.
Because the truth is that they caused it.

The last time that sort of thing happened, we got punished with 8 years of Dubya.

eht slat meit
04-29-2015, 12:03 PM
The last time that sort of thing happened, we got punished with 8 years of Dubya.

He didn't get voted in twice that way.

GonzoTheGreat
04-29-2015, 12:14 PM
He didn't get voted in twice that way.
He was appointed by SCOTUS the first time. Obviously, the American voters were then legally bound to respect that final decision four years later.

Davian93
04-29-2015, 12:16 PM
He didn't get voted in twice that way.

Yeah, the nation shockingly rallied around a wartime president...that never happens. He never gets elected if not for utter stupidity in Florida in 2000.

Nazbaque
04-29-2015, 12:27 PM
I don't get why anyone wants to be president of the USA, when all they ever get is blamed for what is the whole country's fault.

Davian93
04-29-2015, 12:34 PM
I don't get why anyone wants to be president of the USA, when all they ever get is blamed for what is the whole country's fault.

Cool toys, lots of power, financially set for life and then some (given the money they always pull in afterwards being "consultants" and "paid guest speakers" on the lecture circuit.

And they're all sociopaths of course.

Nazbaque
04-29-2015, 12:44 PM
Cool toys, lots of power, financially set for life and then some (given the money they always pull in afterwards being "consultants" and "paid guest speakers" on the lecture circuit.

And they're all sociopaths of course.

So the country is governed on the principle of bribing someone to take the blame for how poorly it is governed?

GonzoTheGreat
04-30-2015, 03:13 AM
So the country is governed on the principle of bribing someone to take the blame for how poorly it is governed?
Put like that, would Hillary Clinton really be a bad candidate?

Nazbaque
04-30-2015, 04:12 AM
Put like that, would Hillary Clinton really be a bad candidate?

Yes, she is too good for it. The population could blame her so easily it would see that it doesn't solve anything and... hey wait. Okay she would be so incompetent that the USA could no longer avoid responsibility for itself.

In a really round about fashion she would be to America what Egwene is to the Aes Sedai.

Davian93
04-30-2015, 06:52 AM
Yes, she is too good for it. The population could blame her so easily it would see that it doesn't solve anything and... hey wait. Okay she would be so incompetent that the USA could no longer avoid responsibility for itself.

In a really round about fashion she would be to America what Egwene is to the Aes Sedai.

She did a pretty good job the first time she was President...hell, we even reelected her to a 2nd term back then.

Hilldog means Bill is back and the Bill/Hillary tagteam is the greatest presidency we've had since FDR.

Frenzy
05-02-2015, 12:09 AM
She did a pretty good job the first time she was President...hell, we even reelected her to a 2nd term back then.

Hilldog means Bill is back and the Bill/Hillary tagteam is the greatest presidency we've had since FDR.

And if you want to get technical about it, the last time we had a viable third party spoiler was 1992, and some argue that's what got us Clinton 1.0.

Kimon
05-02-2015, 08:57 AM
And if you want to get technical about it, the last time we had a viable third party spoiler was 1992, and some argue that's what got us Clinton 1.0.

Heck, Perot wasn't anywhere near as viable in '96, but he did still get 8.4% of the vote, a little over 8 million total votes. Clinton would have still just barely squeaked out the popular - by around 200,000 votes. The electoral college should still have been quite safe. That's still significantly more than Nader, albeit if even one out of every ten Nader voters in Florida had voted for Gore we avoid the horror. Just goes to show, you want the interloper stealing votes from the other side, not a better, if completely impossible option on your own side.

So as much as we on the true left all prefer Bernie, he better not run as an independent after losing the primary. I don't want to experience another Bush presidency, or, god forbid, Walker or Rubio. Hilary may be a flawed option, but the alternative...

Davian93
05-02-2015, 12:55 PM
And if you want to get technical about it, the last time we had a viable third party spoiler was 1992, and some argue that's what got us Clinton 1.0.

Exit polls showed that Perot was basically a non-factor...had he not run, his vote would have been split pretty equally. Clinton still wins. He won by 5.3 million votes with Perot in the race. Had Perot not run, exit polls show Clinton winning by 5.3 million and still carrying an easy majority in the Electoral College.

The whole "Perot lost Bush the election" myth is something Conservatives tell themselves to feel better and to try and discredit Clinton as President. IE...its BS just like most other stuff they say.


Bush Sr lost thanks to a poorly timed recession that was the direct result of spending cuts after the Cold War ended and thanks to him being saddled with dealing with the massive deficits his predecessor (St. Reagan) ran up. Bad luck for him really as he was't all that bad of a President (other than appointing Thomas to the Supreme Court). He was far better than his offspring.

Davian93
05-02-2015, 12:57 PM
Heck, Perot wasn't anywhere near as viable in '96, but he did still get 8.4% of the vote, a little over 8 million total votes. Clinton would have still just barely squeaked out the popular - by around 200,000 votes. The electoral college should still have been quite safe. That's still significantly more than Nader, albeit if even one out of every ten Nader voters in Florida had voted for Gore we avoid the horror. Just goes to show, you want the interloper stealing votes from the other side, not a better, if completely impossible option on your own side.

So as much as we on the true left all prefer Bernie, he better not run as an independent after losing the primary. I don't want to experience another Bush presidency, or, god forbid, Walker or Rubio. Hilary may be a flawed option, but the alternative...

You are wrongly assuming that every vote Perot took was only from Dole and nothing from Clinton...which is massively inaccurate.

Bernie has already said he will run for the Dem Nomination or not at all. He will 100% not be another Nader. He's way too smart for that anyway.

Bernie's a good guy and he knows full well he's not going to win. He's using this as a platform to force the Dem Party back at least to the Center after drifting Center Right over the past 20 years.

Frenzy
05-02-2015, 03:34 PM
i'm just annoyed we can't resurrect & reelect zombie Teddy Roosevelt :p

Zombie Sammael
05-03-2015, 12:04 AM
i'm just annoyed we can't resurrect & reelect zombie Teddy Roosevelt :p

I can change my name if you think that would help?

Nazbaque
05-03-2015, 12:27 AM
i'm just annoyed we can't resurrect & reelect zombie Teddy Roosevelt :p

If you could, most people would still vote for Zombie Nixon in that election.

GonzoTheGreat
05-03-2015, 02:45 AM
I can change my name if you think that would help?
Even if you ran as Zombie Bear, I'm not sure that would be enough. I seem to recall that you pretend to have been born on the wrong island (you were of course obviously born in Kenya, as were all non-Republican candidates).

Of course, if you can find the right sponsor, it is possible that SCOTUS would hand down a verdict of "good enough" when you are defending your candidacy. But most sponsors of that kind use their free speech (ie. money) to support the other side.

Davian93
05-04-2015, 07:06 AM
One part of me that gets joy out the current election cycle is the fact that many of the same mouth breathers that went on and on about Obama's birth will automatically support Ted Cruz who, in all likelihood, is not eligible for election based on their proclaimed definition of a natural-born citizen. Born outside the US to one citizen and one-non citizen and that citizen likely can't officially prove that they were even in the US for a long period of time after his birth.

Now, by actual US Law, none of that matters...his mom was and is a US citizen so he is too. But by their idiotic standards, he has a far weaker case than the Kenyan Usurper. Can we really trust some half-Cuban/half-Canadian to run this country? Do we really want to open ourselves up to the sort of Canadian Communist Fascisti Sharian law that he would want to impose?!? I, for one, dont!

Ivhon
05-04-2015, 01:21 PM
Yannow, Dav, as someone with a deviated septum who then broke his nose doing an inward tuck off the 3 meter, I have no choice but to breathe through my mouth most of the time...

Southpaw2012
05-14-2015, 03:48 PM
Just remember, the media is NOT biased..

http://news.yahoo.com/stephanopoulos-says-disclosed-donations-164022662.html

Kimon
05-14-2015, 04:03 PM
Just remember, the media is NOT biased..

http://news.yahoo.com/stephanopoulos-says-disclosed-donations-164022662.html

Stephanopoulos did voluntarily step aside from moderating the debate, so not sure what the problem is supposed to be here. Nor is he an isolated instance of former political operatives now employed as media fixtures. There are quite a few former Republican politicians employed on Fox, but also on msnbc - Joe Scarborough.

Many of those are more along the lines of editorialists than impartial journalists, but Stephanopoulos, while clearly once attached to the dems is hardly unqualified for his job at NBC, or for the job of moderating debates. He was after all Columbia and Oxford trained, began his political career working for another Greek-American, Mike Dukakis, then was Press Secretary for Clinton before taking the NBC gig. He has also moderated debates for both the dems and the republicans. That last is perhaps the real issue, not any question of bias, but annoyance at the fact that he asked pertinent questions during a Republican Debate back in '12. Questions which Romney was unwilling to answer, as they demonstrated a divergence from stances he had taken while running and serving as governor of Massachusetts compared to his stance at the time. The question was on the Right to Privacy and contraception rights. Is that an unreasonable question for presidential candidates? I don't think so. Is it perhaps one that republicans would be hesitant to answer, especially during the primaries? Yes. Does that mean that no potentially controversial questions should be asked? What then is the point of holding a debate? This strikes me as less an issue of bias, and more an issue of the republicans wanting to ensure that they control the parameters of the debate, and control the types of questions that can be asked.

Davian93
05-14-2015, 07:55 PM
From the article you reference...

The three donations of $25,000 each in 2012, 2013 and 2014 were made to the foundation set up by former President Bill Clinton because of the organization's work on global AIDS prevention and deforestation

Truly he is history's greatest monster. I heard he also helped out at a soup kitchen once!!!

Dumbass, a charity and a political organization ARE NOT the same thing. You'd know that of course if you weren't a horse's ass.

Nazbaque
05-15-2015, 01:22 AM
From the article you reference...



Truly he is history's greatest monster. I heard he also helped out at a soup kitchen once!!!

Dumbass, a charity and a political organization ARE NOT the same thing. You'd know that of course if you weren't a horse's ass.

Now Dav, he may be annoying but there is no call for insults like that. I'll have you know that I know plenty of horses whose asses Southpaw isn't worthy to kiss much less be compared to.

Daekyras
05-15-2015, 04:48 AM
Jesus lads.

Do you ever feel like you come on a bit strong on southpaw?

His ideas are crap but he doesn't seem to call names or throw sweeping insults around. you are all better than that. even on the wild west boards.

Daekyras
05-15-2015, 04:49 AM
Yannow, Dav, as someone with a deviated septum who then broke his nose doing an inward tuck off the 3 meter, I have no choice but to breathe through my mouth most of the time...

ouch.

GonzoTheGreat
05-15-2015, 05:19 AM
Yannow, Dav, as someone with a deviated septum who then broke his nose doing an inward tuck off the 3 meter, I have no choice but to breathe through my mouth most of the time...
I suspect that it would have been smarter if you hadn't broken your nose in that way.

Nazbaque
05-15-2015, 08:33 AM
Jesus lads.

Do you ever feel like you come on a bit strong on southpaw?

His ideas are crap but he doesn't seem to call names or throw sweeping insults around. you are all better than that. even on the wild west boards.

Nothing harsh about it. Southpaw just happened to be the subject at hand. I object to any human being compared to a horse's ass for there is no way a mere human could reach that level of magnificense. Southpaw may be unworthy of even kissing one, but that is because of all the things he sullies his mouth with. It would be unhygenic.

Daekyras
05-15-2015, 09:16 AM
Nothing harsh about it. Southpaw just happened to be the subject at hand. I object to any human being compared to a horse's ass for there is no way a mere human could reach that level of magnificense. Southpaw may be unworthy of even kissing one, but that is because of all the things he sullies his mouth with. It would be unhygenic.

I feel like you may have intentionally missed my point there...;)

Nazbaque
05-15-2015, 09:33 AM
I feel like you may have intentionally missed my point there...;)

Oh well, if there is no offence is it an insult? And if Southpaw doesn't read it can he be offended? In the end what really gets to Dav is the lack of response. And watching Dav get pissed is somewhat entertaining. And now that I've said that he might stop just to spite me, which of course might be why I said it. Then again after saying that no one can figure out what I'm really after and two things are possible: 1) They actually think about it in detail or 2)completely ingnore me thinking "It's Naz. It's not worth the headache."

Davian93
05-15-2015, 05:22 PM
I despise stupidity. I really do. It gets worse for me the older I get as I get more crotchety.

GonzoTheGreat
05-16-2015, 03:44 AM
Stupidity can be created, but not destroyed. Thus, once invented, it has kept growing.

Southpaw2012
06-26-2015, 08:49 AM
http://www.examiner.com/article/state-dept-admits-hillary-clinton-may-have-lied-about-benghazi-emails

http://news.yahoo.com/missing-clinton-emails-likely-raise-questions-072412491--election.html

What???!! Really?! A Clinton lies??

Davian93
06-26-2015, 09:04 AM
15 emails out of 300,000!!!! MY GOD, WE'RE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, PEOPLE!!!!

Ozymandias
06-26-2015, 10:28 AM
I mean, a Clinton lying is an old tale. No one should be surprised by anything coming from such an unscrupulous family (or couple, I don't know about the kids).

However, this Benghazi nonsense has gone on long enough.

Davian93
06-26-2015, 11:20 AM
I mean, a Clinton lying is an old tale. No one should be surprised by anything coming from such an unscrupulous family (or couple, I don't know about the kids).

However, this Benghazi nonsense has gone on long enough.

From what I understand, Obama and Clinton personally led the terrorist squad that assassinated the US Ambassador. They then drank a barrel of bloodwine using his skull for a cup.

Southpaw2012
06-26-2015, 11:22 AM
15 emails out of 300,000!!!! MY GOD, WE'RE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, PEOPLE!!!!


It doesn't take a genius to figure out that something has been going on. Though, many reasonable people knew that since Sept. 11, 2012.

Ozymandias
06-26-2015, 11:27 AM
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that something has been going on. Though, many reasonable people knew that since Sept. 11, 2012.

Yes, and what has been going on is a bunch of overpaid, under-educated GOP Congressmen using Benghazi as a convenient distraction from the fact that they have no real policy alternatives to the vast number of problems the federal government should be solving.

Every single subcommittee that has been formed to investigate Benghazi has found nothing. And those committees are predisposed to find something, because they are going in with the biased opinion that there is something to be found. This is an example of a conspiracy theorist not being able to find ANYTHING to support a conspiracy.

Davian93
06-26-2015, 11:31 AM
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that something has been going on. Though, many reasonable people knew that since Sept. 11, 2012.

Yeah, the GOP cut funding for State Dept security and has been throwing down a smoke screen ever since so everyone tries to blame Obama & Clinton for an attack on an embassy...while ignoring the dozen plus attacks on embassies and consulates under Bush.

There is no conspiracy, there never was. It was a terrorist act, the end. No one has covered up anything. The 25,000 Congressional inquiries since then have all said the same thing. Get over it.

GonzoTheGreat
06-26-2015, 11:32 AM
Every single subcommittee that has been formed to investigate Benghazi has found nothing. And those committees are predisposed to find something, because they are going in with the biased opinion that there is something to be found.
Mind you, they could probably defend their inability to find anything incriminating by referring to their own incompetence. Wouldn't be all that easy to counter that argument, I think.

Southpaw2012
06-29-2015, 01:56 PM
http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-26-at-4.18.22-PM-670x517.png

Ozymandias
06-29-2015, 03:11 PM
http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-26-at-4.18.22-PM-670x517.png

Nice straw man away from your crackpot Benghazi theory.

But I agree. The Clintons are disgusting, self-aggrandizing slimeballs who would burn any ideal they ever professed to have if it would get them elected. Whether its covering up Bill's serial philandering and then smearing the victims, or the constant reversals on policy to chase votes, or the barely veiled racial fear mongering in the 2008 primary season, there is no level too low for the Clintons. Its a shame the only alternative is likely to be a creationist crackpot from the GOP, and I'll take sleazy politician over simpleminded bigot any day.

Davian93
06-29-2015, 06:40 PM
http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Screen-Shot-2015-06-26-at-4.18.22-PM-670x517.png

I know this is hard for you to understand but normal, rational people actually change their opinion from time to time. Its actually an indicator of intelligence to be able to hear a rational argument and reassess one's world viewpoint accordingly.

Conservatives don't grasp this because like many dumb people they simply dig their heels in further when presented with contrary information:

"The world is 6000 years old"

"Please explain these dinosaur bones then"

"God put those there to test our faith"

"Um..."

Durvasha
06-29-2015, 08:32 PM
Worse.

Once I have been told, "God doesn't test anyone's faith", alongside "God put the dinosaurs bone in the ground 10,000 years ago".

When asked why, the reply was, "Mortals cannot fathom the mind of God".

GonzoTheGreat
06-30-2015, 02:56 AM
I know this is hard for you to understand but normal, rational people actually change their opinion from time to time. Its actually an indicator of intelligence to be able to hear a rational argument and reassess one's world viewpoint accordingly.
Southpaw, though, is firmly convinced that GWB conspired with Putin and Saddam to hide the WMD. After all, if he hadn't, then (if those weapons actually existed) the weapons would have been found; the USA knew precisely where they were all the time.

When asked why, the reply was, "Mortals cannot fathom the mind of God".
Did you have any counter to that, or was it a killer argument?

Durvasha
06-30-2015, 02:49 PM
Southpaw, though, is firmly convinced that GWB conspired with Putin and Saddam to hide the WMD. After all, if he hadn't, then (if those weapons actually existed) the weapons would have been found; the USA knew precisely where they were all the time.


Did you have any counter to that, or was it a killer argument?

It was a killer argument. It killed any desire on my part to continue arguing.

GonzoTheGreat
07-01-2015, 03:06 AM
It was a killer argument. It killed any desire on my part to continue arguing.
Frank Herbert was very right when he wrote that all religions have an unspoken implicit Commandment "thou shalt not question".

Southpaw2012
07-24-2015, 02:34 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/hillary-clinton-sent-classified-over-her-private-email-185632454.html

It's tough to continue defending old Hillary, but then again, people still find insane reasons to defend Obama.

The Unreasoner
07-24-2015, 03:20 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/hillary-clinton-sent-classified-over-her-private-email-185632454.html

It's tough to continue defending old Hillary, but then again, people still find insane reasons to defend Obama.
I hate you so much. Mental laziness is far worse than stupidity.

NargsBrood
07-24-2015, 05:31 PM
I don't trust Hillary.

Most people don't trust Hillary. She has smart people working for her -- maybe she'll recover but I'd wager against that at this point.

GonzoTheGreat
07-25-2015, 03:15 AM
The only thing that Hillary has in her favor is that she's not a right wing extremist fundamentalist, as the Republicans are. That may very well be enough to bring her the presidency, but it isn't really a ringing endorsement.

Davian93
07-26-2015, 05:41 PM
I don't trust Hillary.

Most people don't trust Hillary. She has smart people working for her -- maybe she'll recover but I'd wager against that at this point.

Recover from what? Being the overwhelming favorite for the Dem and Presidential election?

Daekyras
07-26-2015, 09:19 PM
Recover from what? Being the overwhelming favorite for the Dem and Presidential election?

John kerry??

NargsBrood
07-27-2015, 01:15 AM
Recover from what? Being the overwhelming favorite for the Dem and Presidential election?

People aren't trusting her and are jumping ship. Sanders is gaining in the polls where Hillary is dropping steadily. GOP candidates are polling better than she is in key swing states.

GonzoTheGreat
07-27-2015, 03:33 AM
GOP candidates are polling better than she is in key swing states.
That whole "swing states" concept is so outdated; no wonder it benefits conservatives.

The USA should consider going to a "one man, one vote" system, instead of holding on to the old aristocratic concept of "land owners count for more than landless peons". Don't expect it to happen, though. Somehow, the electoral college tends to be useful to the winner; strange how that works out again and again.

yks 6nnetu hing
07-27-2015, 03:55 AM
The USA should consider going to a "one man, one vote" system,

you filthy communist!

GonzoTheGreat
07-27-2015, 05:58 AM
you filthy communist!Just a few minutes ago, it rained on me. So obviously I don't qualify as "filthy".

Davian93
07-27-2015, 10:41 AM
People aren't trusting her and are jumping ship. Sanders is gaining in the polls where Hillary is dropping steadily. GOP candidates are polling better than she is in key swing states.

It's 16 months till the election. At this point in 2007, everyone was 100% certain that it would end up being Hillary vs Giuliani...

Polls are nearly utterly meaningless right now...and Sanders knows full well he'll never be the nominee.


Unless you actually think Trump is for real that is. I mean, power to you if you do...

NargsBrood
07-27-2015, 11:14 AM
318 million people in this country and the best we can come up with are Hillary & Jeb, a pair of bad sequels that make Highlander 2 look like Godfather 2.

We're fooked.

Too true. Too sad.

Politicians are 10th tier cream of the crop. For the real cream, you'd have to follow the money.

Kimon
07-28-2015, 09:01 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/hillary-clinton-sent-classified-over-her-private-email-185632454.html

It's tough to continue defending old Hillary, but then again, people still find insane reasons to defend Obama.

Not sure if yahoo (since I never look at yahoo except when you link to it), or if the Wall Street Journal (whose article the yahoo story refers back to) has issued a correction, but the story first appeared in the New York Times, and has since been corrected heavily. Here's their most recent mea culpa.

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/a-clinton-story-fraught-with-inaccuracies-how-it-happened-and-what-next/

Here's the basic gist:

The story – a Times exclusive — appeared high on the home page and the mobile app late Thursday and on Friday and then was displayed with a three-column headline on the front page in Friday’s paper. The online headline read “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email,” very similar to the one in print.

But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

From Thursday night to Sunday morning – when a final correction appeared in print – the inaccuracies and changes in the story were handled as they came along, with little explanation to readers, other than routine corrections. The first change I mentioned above was written into the story for hours without a correction or any notice of the change, which was substantive.

And the evolving story, which began to include a new development, simply replaced the older version. That development was that several instances of classified information had been found in Mrs. Clinton’s personal email – although, in fairness, it’s doubtful whether the information was marked as classified when she sent or received those emails. Eventually, a number of corrections were appended to the online story, before appearing in print in the usual way – in small notices on Page A2.

So, nothing really new. What she did was in retrospect really bad pr, and deserving of a change in official protocol, but otherwise much ado about mostly nothing.

Ozymandias
07-29-2015, 03:19 PM
It's 16 months till the election. At this point in 2007, everyone was 100% certain that it would end up being Hillary vs Giuliani...


Really? I can't think of anyone who thought Guiliani was a serious national candidate, and I am a New Yorker (Hillary obviously a different story).

His only qualification was basically having his picture taken on and after 9/11. And basically everyone recognized that at the time. No NYC politician can be a viable Presidential candidate, especially not on the conservative side... conservative politics in NYC are basically liberal politics in the rest of the country. The NYC right wing is too centrist, and the left is WAY too populist.

Davian93
07-29-2015, 05:35 PM
Really? I can't think of anyone who thought Guiliani was a serious national candidate, and I am a New Yorker (Hillary obviously a different story).

His only qualification was basically having his picture taken on and after 9/11. And basically everyone recognized that at the time. No NYC politician can be a viable Presidential candidate, especially not on the conservative side... conservative politics in NYC are basically liberal politics in the rest of the country. The NYC right wing is too centrist, and the left is WAY too populist.

At this point in 2007, he was leading the polls for the GOP nomination much the same way Trump is right now.

Ozymandias
07-30-2015, 04:03 PM
At this point in 2007, he was leading the polls for the GOP nomination much the same way Trump is right now.

Those are two VERY different statements though. Polls, especially at an early stage, are unreliable and the nature of people to glom onto the newest shiny thing comes through most clearly in opinion polls.

That having been the first Presidential election I was eligible to vote in, I remember it very clearly and I cannot recall anyone who thought Guiliani was a serious candidate. Just a flash in the pan. Which isn't to say that my anecdotal evidence is the last word, or even that it should contradict polling data... but does anyone else remember seriously considering Guiliani for the nomination? Sometimes I think (and I also seem to recall reading studies on this) that we let opinion polls decide who we support, instead of the other way around.

Terez
07-30-2015, 05:18 PM
I don't think the national party ever quite got to know Giuliani anywhere near as well as New Yorkers know him. I don't even remember what caused him to fall from popularity honestly; he doesn't strike me as being all that different from other Republican candidates, though he's said some pretty stupid and hateful things. They all do, especially when they're done running for office.

I do remember his popularity, though. It stemmed from his association with American martyrdom, something the GOP loves. Many GOP voters still think of him as a serious candidate type.

Davian93
07-30-2015, 07:47 PM
Those are two VERY different statements though. Polls, especially at an early stage, are unreliable and the nature of people to glom onto the newest shiny thing comes through most clearly in opinion polls.

That having been the first Presidential election I was eligible to vote in, I remember it very clearly and I cannot recall anyone who thought Guiliani was a serious candidate. Just a flash in the pan. Which isn't to say that my anecdotal evidence is the last word, or even that it should contradict polling data... but does anyone else remember seriously considering Guiliani for the nomination? Sometimes I think (and I also seem to recall reading studies on this) that we let opinion polls decide who we support, instead of the other way around.

So...who's the leading candidate this year? Which one of these clownshoes candidates on the GOP side is the "leading candidate" right now if you ignore the polls?

17 candidates running and they're all embarrassingly bad.

Kimon
07-30-2015, 07:53 PM
So...who's the leading candidate this year? Which one of these clownshoes candidates on the GOP side is the "leading candidate" right now if you ignore the polls?

17 candidates running and they're all embarrassingly bad.

Not that I'd vote for either of them, but Jeb Bush and John Kasich are both good candidates. I wouldn't be surprised if that eventually becomes the Republican ticket. Scott Walker would also be on that list, but even the Republicans must admit at some point that a college degree is a prerequisite, right?

Ivhon
07-30-2015, 08:20 PM
Not that I'd vote for either of them, but Jeb Bush and John Kasich are both good candidates. I wouldn't be surprised if that eventually becomes the Republican ticket. Scott Walker would also be on that list, but even the Republicans must admit at some point that a college degree is a prerequisite, right?

No. It's becoming increasingly apparent that an education is a suspicious thing on the Right. Just go to church...

Davian93
07-30-2015, 08:34 PM
Not that I'd vote for either of them, but Jeb Bush and John Kasich are both good candidates. I wouldn't be surprised if that eventually becomes the Republican ticket. Scott Walker would also be on that list, but even the Republicans must admit at some point that a college degree is a prerequisite, right?

Walker has utterly destroyed Wisconsin but yeah.

Kimon
07-30-2015, 08:44 PM
Walker has utterly destroyed Wisconsin but yeah.

I was mostly referring to the other two. I'm not sure if Republicans really care about educational background for their candidates, but a man without even a bachelor's degree is unworthy of being president. Nor did I mean to imply that even Bush or Kasich would be good presidents, only good candidates. Either Bush or Kasich would have a good chance of beating Hillary, and would beat Bernie. As a combination they likely would be favored to win. The road to victory without either Ohio or Florida is very narrow for a Democrat.

Davian93
07-30-2015, 08:58 PM
I was mostly referring to the other two. I'm not sure if Republicans really care about educational background for their candidates, but a man without even a bachelor's degree is unworthy of being president. Nor did I mean to imply that even Bush or Kasich would be good presidents, only good candidates. Either Bush or Kasich would have a good chance of beating Hillary, and would beat Bernie. As a combination they likely would be favored to win. The road to victory without either Ohio or Florida is very narrow for a Democrat.

I wouldn't be so sure on that...especially as Bernie gets more national exposure. We've never had a true progressive run for national office.

Kimon
07-30-2015, 09:13 PM
I wouldn't be so sure on that...especially as Bernie gets more national exposure. We've never had a true progressive run for national office.

He reminds me a bit of Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, and George McGovern. A lot of others too. His policies aren't out of step with typical Democrat stances, albeit perhaps a bit more of what the dems were like back in the 60s and 70s than the more conservative party that they are now. Still the main problem I think he has is his age and appearance. If he was 20 years younger and had a look more handsome than absent-minded professor, he'd have a better chance. Frankly, Hillary's age is a problem too. I'm not sure that Americans are still willing to elect such an old president after dealing with Reagan. One president suffering from dementia was enough.

Other than that, there is little substantive cause for dislike of Hillary, at least for them. As much as the Republicans hate Hillary, Hillary basically is a 1970s era Republican, like Ford or Rockefeller - back before the Republican party became so terrifying.

GonzoTheGreat
07-31-2015, 03:03 AM
I don't think the national party ever quite got to know Giuliani anywhere near as well as New Yorkers know him. I don't even remember what caused him to fall from popularity honestly; he doesn't strike me as being all that different from other Republican candidates, though he's said some pretty stupid and hateful things. They all do, especially when they're done running for office.I have the impression that the "though" there is totally unnecessary, perhaps even somewhat detrimental to the understanding. Am I wrong about that?

Ozymandias
08-04-2015, 01:45 PM
So...who's the leading candidate this year? Which one of these clownshoes candidates on the GOP side is the "leading candidate" right now if you ignore the polls?

17 candidates running and they're all embarrassingly bad.

I don't claim to have a crystal ball. I'd think Jeb Bush seems most likely (and also maybe the only person who would make me vote Hillary). But Guiliani was the equivalent of Trump in this election. Exciting at first, but no reasonable person was voting for him.

Davian93
08-04-2015, 02:21 PM
I don't claim to have a crystal ball. I'd think Jeb Bush seems most likely (and also maybe the only person who would make me vote Hillary). But Guiliani was the equivalent of Trump in this election. Exciting at first, but no reasonable person was voting for him.

Are there still reasonable GOP voters? The entire party has gone pretty far off the deep end at this point.

Ivhon
08-04-2015, 03:00 PM
Are there still reasonable GOP voters? The entire party has gone pretty far off the deep end at this point.

That Trump - despite everything - continues to grow his lead in the polls speaks to what the Republican voters want. That the other candidates are engaging in stupidly unpresidential theatrics (chainsaws and shotguns) validates the observation.

Davian93
08-04-2015, 07:18 PM
That Trump - despite everything - continues to grow his lead in the polls speaks to what the Republican voters want. That the other candidates are engaging in stupidly unpresidential theatrics (chainsaws and shotguns) validates the observation.

They want a demagogue...and he's giving them one.

Not really a surprise given how much the Right seems to love Putin and his "strong" leadership.

Khoram
08-04-2015, 07:21 PM
They want a demagogue...and he's giving them one.

Not really a surprise given how much the Right seems to love Putin and his "strong" leadership.

I think I'll just leave this (https://youtu.be/zk_VszbZa_s) here. :rolleyes:

Terez
08-05-2015, 12:54 AM
That Trump - despite everything - continues to grow his lead in the polls speaks to what the Republican voters want. That the other candidates are engaging in stupidly unpresidential theatrics (chainsaws and shotguns) validates the observation.
Republican primary voters have made clear through polling that they would rather have a candidate who agrees with them than a candidate who can win. And the Establishment throws up its collective hands, because what can you say to that?

GonzoTheGreat
08-05-2015, 03:47 AM
Republican primary voters have made clear through polling that they would rather have a candidate who agrees with them than a candidate who can win. And the Establishment throws up its collective hands, because what can you say to that?They could choose to use some other system for their primary. They aren't legally required to use the current stupid mess, are they?

Terez
08-05-2015, 08:18 AM
They could choose to use some other system for their primary. They aren't legally required to use the current stupid mess, are they?

Which mess is that? There are a lot of details, and some are always changing. New this year: Fox News has been allowed to decide who will be able to compete for the GOP nomination.

GonzoTheGreat
08-05-2015, 08:49 AM
Which mess is that?
The idea of having government organised primaries for what should be private political parties. Let each party handle its own primary however it wants to, and then it is only their own problem as long as they don't violate any laws.