Lord Liaden Posted August 4, 2016 Report Share Posted August 4, 2016 Recently Stephen Colbert brought back his phony right-wing pundit character from his old Colbert Report to his current Late Show, to "explain" the rise of Donald Trump. I will risk the wrath of Dan Simon by linking to that scene from the Late Show, because if you ignore the sarcasm, I believe it's actually quite insightful as to Trump's appeal to his supporters, and why they're so willing to ignore his more outrageous statements. (Dan, I'll readily accept deletion of this if you rule that it crosses the line.) wcw43921 and Shadow Hawk 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted August 4, 2016 Report Share Posted August 4, 2016 Marist poll shows Clinton 48, Trump 33. The panic attacks in the Republican party establishment will commence in 3...2...1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted August 4, 2016 Report Share Posted August 4, 2016 Trump is no Republican...I believe the panic attacks started for their 'establishment' the second he became the probable candidate. DasBroot and gewing 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmower Boy Posted August 4, 2016 Report Share Posted August 4, 2016 Trump is no Republican...I believe the panic attacks started for their 'establishment' the second he became the probable candidate. You gotta dance with the one what brung ya. Trump is clearly the candidate that the Republican primary process prefers. That didn't just happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted August 4, 2016 Report Share Posted August 4, 2016 I just think the fact that he's no politician, he's not establishment, supposedly funded his own campaign and directly appealed to some undercurrent of 'white' anger is actually what the primary process preferred. He ran Republican because that's where he thought he had the best chance to win. gewing 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolgroth Posted August 4, 2016 Report Share Posted August 4, 2016 Marist poll shows Clinton 48, Trump 33. The panic attacks in the Republican party establishment will commence in 3...2...1 No panic from me, but then again I am not "party establishment." I already predicted a Hillary Clinton win. And of course it is one poll among many that came before and will come after. The important poll comes in November. All others will become meaningless once that one is taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 I just think the fact that he's no politician, he's not establishment, supposedly funded his own campaign and directly appealed to some undercurrent of 'white' anger is actually what the primary process preferred. He ran Republican because that's where he thought he had the best chance to win. Honestly, the widespread notion that Donald Trump is somehow "non-establishment" (and I'm not specifically accusing you of that, Jeff -- you're just repeating the meme) boggles me. Sure, he was never a politician, but he rubbed elbows with many in the past, and gave high-profile endorsements to some. Many Trump supporters worry about Hillary Clinton being in the pocket of big business. It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that Donald Trump is one of the pockets. Big business is how he made all that campaign-self-financing money. Viewed from the perspective of that priority, voting for him is just cutting out the middle man. Shadow Hawk and gewing 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 Oh, of course. People believe a false narrative. Non-politician is false as well...a billionaire in real estate must be making big deals with politicians on a weekly basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 Actually, if I knew he'd only do that last sentence, I'd vote for him. A do-nothing President is the best President we can hope for. If it were possible, I would vote for the decayed remains of Teddy Roosevelt before... He could not get into any trouble. If I could resurrect him... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 To be fair, it's probably not her only motivation, though she's got the stigma of a career politician. We peons in the general population will probably never know the full extent of her motivations, level of sincerity and commitment to the causes she champions, etc. We'll only have her word to go on and her actions to judge her by. Frankly, we'll probably lack the perspective to adequately judge her actions. I just couldn't resist the word play. This may well be just a matter of semantics, but... I suppose.The problem is, I don't know if I wold really call her a a career Politician. A political Spouse for Many years, but she only ran for office on her own what, 14 years ago?? Political, yes, but not an elected official or (though I could easily not be remembering all of her activities, as I live 2000 miles from Arkansas) a political appointee. Though I dislike her, I do not fear her the way I fear her opponent. aylwin13 and DasBroot 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 8 years as a US Senator, 4 years as a Cabinet secretary. First Lady, in the modern era, is a quasi-political position, and I am sure she was involved in some decision making and some policy initiatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuz the Evil Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 After Bush I, she's arguably the most qualified person to run for POTUS in the past 30+ years. Reagan? Governor, meh. Clinton? Same. Bush 2? Please. Obama? Senator. She's got the background anyway. Whatever people may think of her personality, or political pitfalls through the years (both of which are somewhat overblown). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pattern Ghost Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 This may well be just a matter of semantics, but... I suppose.The problem is, I don't know if I wold really call her a a career Politician. A political Spouse for Many years, but she only ran for office on her own what, 14 years ago?? Political, yes, but not an elected official or (though I could easily not be remembering all of her activities, as I live 2000 miles from Arkansas) a political appointee. Though I dislike her, I do not fear her the way I fear her opponent. She's been involved in politics since the age of 13. She campaigned for Goldwater in high school. She majored in Political Science in college and was the president of her chapter of the Young Republicans. She stayed involved in politics through her college career, married a politician, became First Lady, then a senator, then Secretary of State and is now running for President. That looks like a life long political career to me, very likely to culminate in her holding the highest office in the land. I don't see how she could be considered anything but a career politician, and a very successful one at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DasBroot Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 It says something of fatigue that nobody's mentioned Trump claiming to have gotten access to top secret Iranian military tape of the US transferring $400 million to Iran in exchange for hostages. For two days. Despite - it not being top secret - it not being Iranian military - it was not in exchange for hostages And this is the man who will soon be getting actual confidential briefings about matters of state so he can be ready to lead if he gets elected? ... well, on the plus side if he gets in I guess we'll finally learn if we landed on the moon, if we took down the towers, if the Kennedy assassination was an inside job, and if aliens landed in Roswell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DasBroot Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 On the other side of the fence it also says something that the only headline stories about Clinton in the same period talk about her growing lead, and how Republicans are beginning to support her. Mostly they're not even headlines, though - just blurbs. In other words - boring. Looks like we may find out if 'there's no such thing as bad press'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 Trump finally admitted to a "misstatement" about the video in a tweet this morning. Well, I guess 1 correction out of 65,000 is a start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted August 5, 2016 Report Share Posted August 5, 2016 On the other side of the fence it also says something that the only headline stories about Clinton in the same period talk about her growing lead, and how Republicans are beginning to support her. Mostly they're not even headlines, though - just blurbs. In other words - boring. Looks like we may find out if 'there's no such thing as bad press'. For me, after this bizarre campaign a dose of boring would be a welcome relief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted August 6, 2016 Report Share Posted August 6, 2016 I can't imagine why Hillary Clinton dislikes the media: I'd be getting all stabby halfway through all that nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted August 7, 2016 Report Share Posted August 7, 2016 http://medium.com/@cshirky/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-protest-vote-c2fdacabd704#.bwf8ha3y1 Doc Shadow 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolgroth Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 http://medium.com/@cshirky/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-protest-vote-c2fdacabd704#.bwf8ha3y1 The writer of that article fails to understand the concept of integrity and moral choice. Even knowing full well that my lack of a presidential vote means nothing, I make that choice willingly because I cannot, in good conscience, vote for any of the candidates. He touches upon it, but doesn't truly understand that some people do make an ethical/moral stand for the very purpose of conscience. It's almost as if the words like 'ethics,' 'morals,' and 'integrity' mean nothing to the modern commentator. And though there is a pretty solid argument for the "don't vote, don't complain" attitude, there is an equally compelling one for the "Hey, I didn't vote for the guy (or girl in this case)" sense of self superiority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 The writer of that article fails to understand the concept of integrity and moral choice. Even knowing full well that my lack of a presidential vote means nothing, I make that choice willingly because I cannot, in good conscience, vote for any of the candidates. He touches upon it, but doesn't truly understand that some people do make an ethical/moral stand for the very purpose of conscience. It's almost as if the words like 'ethics,' 'morals,' and 'integrity' mean nothing to the modern commentator. And though there is a pretty solid argument for the "don't vote, don't complain" attitude, there is an equally compelling one for the "Hey, I didn't vote for the guy (or girl in this case)" sense of self superiority. "Which of these candidates has a realistic chance to win, and of them, which is the least objectionable and will do the least harm to the most vulnerable?" is also a valid moral choice. If one candidate's election will put the lives and rights of some of the most vulnerable citizens at risk, then the maximum moral priority is not to vote for the candidate who most closely aligns with one's personal political preferences, it's to vote for the candidate who is most capable of defeating the candidate who will bring about that adverse outcome. YMMV but I think it's something to think carefully about. Nolgroth, Shadow Hawk and Michael Hopcroft 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 Also, I understand that if an independent party gets enough votes, it gets federal funding which may help it more next time. So, in some ways, it may not be totally 'wasted' if promoting third parties IS your goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Certified Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 Just going to put this out here for those considering wasting their vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megaplayboy Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 Also, I understand that if an independent party gets enough votes, it gets federal funding which may help it more next time. So, in some ways, it may not be totally 'wasted' if promoting third parties IS your goal. Not a huge amount of money, though. Less than 10 bucks per vote. So even if a party gets 7 million votes, they're getting maybe 65 million dollars, which pays for a couple months of ads or some organizing. Non-trivial, but it's not going to make them highly competitive with major parties that have a few billion each to work with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted August 8, 2016 Report Share Posted August 8, 2016 Great things are done by a series of small things - Vincent Van Gogh Nolgroth, Certified and Burrito Boy 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.