Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 2016 US General Election

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • You're missing the point. Trump doing worse among minority voters does not mean Trump is killing the GOP's chances among minority voters. The GOP killed the GOP's chances among minority voters, and aren't seriously making any effort to change that. You can't blame Trump for GOP strategy.

    Nor can you really blame Trump for a Western-world wide trend. Republicans doing poorly among ethnic minority voters is not surprising given the history of the US or the history of the Western world. You might as well blame Gorbachev for Communism's failure. It's not Gorbachev's fault that Communism can't create Silicon Valley. That's just in the nature of Communism.

    Obviously the GOP can do better within certain groups, but there's a lot of picking and choosing. Your Ukraine article proves the point exactly: you can't attract Ukrainian votes if you look cozy to Russia, since, you know, Russia is occupying Ukraine. You can't attract Cuban votes being soft on Castro. You can't attract Asian votes being soft on Communism.

    Here's the CDU in Germany, over the moon excited because they got 31% of the Turkish vote: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/02e13d64-1...#axzz4Jt5FxA8W Which they had to get by supporting Turkish accession, which is stupid because Turkey is not an advanced democracy (see: coup)
    Again, right above, the Tories were over the Moon excited about 35% minority vote.

    So by all means you can say it's easy to woo minority voters, but, no, it's actually pretty damn hard and takes an immense amount of work. It's actually just as hard for left-wing parties, but their difficulty is getting them to turn up to vote. This is not easy stuff, and entire teams of people with a lot more money, knowledge, time, and energy than either you or I do have a hard time making this work.

    Now I think it's actually easy to get these groups to both vote more AND moderate over time. You have a strong culture that demands but also encourages assimilation, you have a strong economy that generates well-paying jobs, you have a housing market that lets people have nice single-family detached homes with white picket fences, and you have a decent public school system. Somehow this magic system seems to turn out good citizens that both vote more and vote more moderately.


    The hard part there is it cuts into someone's profit margins, and we just can't have that, can we?
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DOR View Post
      Doktor,

      I get a bit upset by repeated lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and other efforts to deliberately mislead voters.
      Since casting my first ballot (of 10) in a presidential election, it has been overwhelmingly – and increasingly – coming from the Right.

      I don’t believe I ever heard anyone on the Left (or, Center) question a former President’s use of his own money. Have you?

      = = = = =

      A little context for TopHatter and JRT:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/op...ored.html?_r=0
      It's not his money. It's not a pension. It's a publicly funded fund to keep an ex-president out of the poorhouse, which is why there is some oversight checking what's it's for when requests for money are made. It was never intended to be used (abused) as the Clintons have abused it drawing money for Clinton Foundation salaries, benefits, and equipment... but I think you know that already.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
        It's not his money. It's not a pension. It's a publicly funded fund to keep an ex-president out of the poorhouse, which is why there is some oversight checking what's it's for when requests for money are made. It was never intended to be used (abused) as the Clintons have abused it drawing money for Clinton Foundation salaries, benefits, and equipment... but I think you know that already.
        I'm pretty sure that presidents on all sides have used their allowances to fund things like their personal museums of their times in office etc, plus staff to manage them

        none of those edificies to immortalise themselves have anything to do with keeping them out of the poor house, apart from the fact that they also get personal secdets for them and their immediate families until they drop off this mortal coil.
        Linkeden:
        http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
        http://cofda.wordpress.com/

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
          As for Putin being a better leader than Obama, any idiot can see Putin is a better leader than Obama.
          That is debatable... Putin is no great strategist and by all his foreign 'adventures' has arguably left Greater Muscovy more isolated and ostracised than it was pre the Georgian business for little to no long term economic benefit but in fact long term detriment. If you had to define Putin's 'leadership' in foreign policy terms one would have to conclude that it's main aim is to divert domestic attention from his regimes domestic corruption and the problems that causes. There are times when not doing anything is actually wiser than doing something, though I wouldn't agree with Obama's mixture of "red line" and subsequent inaction in Syria or his ruling out of some options in regard to Ukraine.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
            I'm pretty sure that presidents on all sides have used their allowances to fund things like their personal museums of their times in office etc, plus staff to manage them

            none of those edificies to immortalise themselves have anything to do with keeping them out of the poor house, apart from the fact that they also get personal secdets for them and their immediate families until they drop off this mortal coil.

            A Presidential Library is constructed with private or non-Federal funds donated to non-profit organizations established usually for the express purpose of building a Presidential Library and supporting its programs.

            Some Libraries have also received construction and development funding from state and/or local governments.

            The Library is then transferred to the Federal government and operated and maintained by NARA through its congressionally appropriated operating budget.

            Some staff and programs at Presidential Libraries are paid for with funds from associated private foundations organized to fund the construction of the Library. These private foundations also provide continuing support for Library programs and special events, such as conferences and exhibitions.


            Presidential Libraries FAQ
            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by snapper View Post
              That is debatable...
              Obama was a feckless neophyte coming into office, green as grass and believing his own press.

              I despise Putin rather intensely. But as a leader, there is no comparison between him and Barack Obama.

              Even Obama's staunchest supporters have bemoaned and been baffled his lack of leadership.
              “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

              Comment


              • joe,

                But as a leader, there is no comparison between him and Barack Obama.
                i'll be honest, i completely do not understand this. what makes Putin a leader?

                in what way has Putin demonstrated strategic acumen and vision?

                let's look at the economy.

                Russia's GDP, 2008: 1.66 trillion
                Russia's GDP, 2015: 1.326 trillion

                and it's shrunk further since then.

                US GDP, 2008: 14.7 trillion
                US GDP, 2015: 17.95 trillion

                in short we grew about three russia's worth over the last eight years, russia's shrunk.

                let's look at strategic overview:

                russia in 2008 had undone the Ukrainian color revolution without a single Russian soldier, re-asserted dominance over Georgia, all without touching off a major unified European response. Dubya applied some weak sanctions, and froze the U.S.-Russia civil nuclear cooperation agreement.

                now? russia's economy is reeling under low oil prices and sanctions, hundreds of troops have died in the Ukraine to protect the lousy breakaways while the rest of Ukraine has moved decisively towards the West, Russia's paying billions to directly subsidize Crimea.

                so...how is Russia today a demonstration of Putin's awesome leadership?
                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                Comment



                • http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/11/politi...lth/index.html
                  Search CNN ...
                  Election 2016
                  Nation
                  World
                  Our Team
                  CNN.com
                  Hillary Clinton not feeling well, leaves 9/11 event early
                  By Eric Bradner, Jeff Zeleny and Shimon Prokupecz, CNN
                  Updated 12:08 PM ET, Sun September 11, 2016

                  Hillary Clinton left the 9/11 ceremony early
                  Her campaign said she was feeling overheated
                  (CNN)Hillary Clinton left the 9/11 commemoration ceremony Sunday early after she felt overheated and went to her daughter's apartment, the Clinton campaign said.

                  "Secretary Clinton attended the September 11th Commemoration Ceremony for just one hour and 30 minutes this morning to pay her respects and greet some of the families of the fallen. During the ceremony, she felt overheated so departed to go to her daughter's apartment, and is feeling much better," Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement.

                  The pool accompanying Clinton says she left the ceremony around 9:30 a.m.
                  While she was making her way into a van in her motorcade, Secret Service agents helped her into the van in the motorcade, a senior law enforcement official said.
                  Leaving her daughter's apartment a little before noon, Clinton told reporters she was "feeling great."
                  "It's a beautiful day in New York," she added, while smiling and waving to supporters on the street before getting into her motorcade.
                  Michael Morell, the former CIA deputy director, told CNN's Jake Tapper Sunday he was with Clinton Friday for a national security meeting and "she looked fantastic. She had high energy."
                  "There are times in all of our lives when we don't feel well," he said. "I missed some of the briefings immediately after 9/11 because I wasn't feeling well. So let's not make more of this than there is."
                  Clinton suffered a two-minute coughing fit during an event in Cleveland last week, which she blamed on allergies.
                  "Every time I think about Trump I get allergic," she joked in front of the crowd.
                  Donald Trump and his top surrogates have claimed that she faces a health crisis, citing selectively edited videos of public events to advance claims she's suffered seizures.
                  There is no credible evidence to support any of these claims. Clinton's physician -- the only person to speak on the record who has actually examined her -- has repeatedly affirmed the former secretary of state's health and fitness for the highest office in the land.
                  In an interview on "Fox News Sunday" in August, former New York City mayor and Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani first accused the mainstream media of hiding evidence, then encouraged doubters to "go online and put down 'Hillary Clinton illness.' "
                  During an appearance last month on the Jimmy Kimmel show, Clinton called the GOP claims about her health a "wacky strategy."
                  "I don't know why they are saying this," she said. "I think on the one hand, it is part of the wacky strategy, just say all these crazy things and maybe you can get some people to believe you."
                  The most recent major health problem Clinton has suffered was a scare in 2012 following a concussion -- but she is in good health now, according to a statement from her doctor that Clinton's campaign released in July 2015.
                  "Mrs. Clinton is a healthy 67-year old female whose current medical conditions include hypothyroidiam and seasonal pollen allergies," wrote Dr. Lisa Bardack, Clinton's doctor since 2001, in a health statement provided by Clinton's campaign.
                  The health statement says the blood clot, also known as a thrombosis, that Clinton suffered between her brain and skull following a fainting spell and concussion in late 2012 is completely resolved.
                  "She had follow-up testing in 2013, which revealed complete resolution of the effects of the concussion as well as total dissolution of the thrombosis. Mrs. Clinton also tested negative for all clotting disorders," Bardack writes.
                  But as a precaution, Clinton remains on daily blood thinners, something her husband previously revealed. Clinton takes Coumadin, the brand name for the blood thinner warfarin. She also takes Armour Thyroid for her hypothyroidism, antihistamines and Vitamin B12.
                  Clinton has no known drug allergies, does not smoke, use tobacco products or illicit drugs and drinks occasionally, according to Bardack, who also details her exercise regime: yoga, swimming, walking and weight training.
                  Clinton is up to date on health tests, including a colonoscopy and a few other tests not often seen in a presidential candidate's health disclosure: gynecologic exam, mammogram and breast ultrasound.
                  She received her most recent physical exam on March 21, 2015, according to the the statement. Her blood pressure was 100/65. Her heart rate was 72 and her EKG was normal. Her total cholesterol was 195, with an LDL ("bad cholesterol") of 118, and an
                  HDL ("good cholesterol") of 64 and triglycerides of 69.
                  "She is in excellent physical condition and fit to serve as President of the United States," Bardack's letter concludes.

                  CNN's Dan Merica and Brianna Keilar contributed to this report.
                  ...
                  Last edited by troung; 11 Sep 16,, 20:24.
                  To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                    let's look at strategic overview:

                    russia in 2008 had undone the Ukrainian color revolution without a single Russian soldier, re-asserted dominance over Georgia, all without touching off a major unified European response. Dubya applied some weak sanctions, and froze the U.S.-Russia civil nuclear cooperation agreement.

                    now? russia's economy is reeling under low oil prices and sanctions, hundreds of troops have died in the Ukraine to protect the lousy breakaways while the rest of Ukraine has moved decisively towards the West, Russia's paying billions to directly subsidize Crimea.

                    so...how is Russia today a demonstration of Putin's awesome leadership?
                    Yes, let's look at the strategic picture. The US was actively seeking Ukrainian and Georgian NATO membership over the objections of France and Germany to the point that they tried to get around them. By helping both countries to meet NATO standards without having NATO approval to do so. Obama actively sought the destruction of a key Russian ally, Syria.

                    Today, it is militarily impossible for NATO to defend either the Ukraines or Georgia and truth be learned, the Baltic States ain't in a great position and Assad ain't going anywhere.
                    Chimo

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      joe,
                      i'll be honest, i completely do not understand this. what makes Putin a leader?

                      in what way has Putin demonstrated strategic acumen and vision?
                      ons, hundreds of troops have died in the Ukraine to protect the lousy breakaways while the rest of Ukraine has moved decisively towards the West, Russia's paying billions to directly subsidize Crimea.

                      so...how is Russia today a demonstration of Putin's awesome leadership?
                      Putin's leadership vs Obama's is best elucidated in this article:

                      https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/secre...earn-red-akrim

                      Clearly the Russian economy is currently in trouble. I'm not praising the consequences of Putin's actions, far from it.
                      But Putin, through fair means and foul (mostly foul and even despicable), has led.
                      His goals and the methods to achieve them are not laudable and they've had serious consequences. But he has led.

                      Obama has done anything but. He has dithered and divided. As I said, even his staunchest supports have been left sorely disappointed and disillusioned. Quite the remarkable come-down from 2008, when anything seemed possible and people were literally swooning in the streets.

                      That, more than anything, is my point.
                      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                        Putin's leadership vs Obama's is best elucidated in this article:

                        https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/secre...earn-red-akrim

                        Clearly the Russian economy is currently in trouble. I'm not praising the consequences of Putin's actions, far from it.
                        But Putin, through fair means and foul (mostly foul and even despicable), has led.
                        His goals and the methods to achieve them are not laudable and they've had serious consequences. But he has led.

                        Obama has done anything but. He has dithered and divided. As I said, even his staunchest supports have been left sorely disappointed and disillusioned. Quite the remarkable come-down from 2008, when anything seemed possible and people were literally swooning in the streets.

                        That, more than anything, is my point.

                        You present a tough choice.

                        Either a leader who doesn't lead much, or a leader who takes you down a deep rabbit hole.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                          You present a tough choice.

                          Either a leader who doesn't lead much, or a leader who takes you down a deep rabbit hole.
                          I prefer the third choice: A leader that does't take us down a deep rabbit hole.

                          I had a whole response nicely typed out with links and everything and like an idiot I closed the tab.

                          Here's the summary: Barack Obama came into office thinking he could dictate terms to the GOP and to the nation.

                          Surprise surprise, people don't like being dictated to. Especially not Americans.
                          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                          Comment


                          • joe,

                            Putin's leadership vs Obama's is best elucidated in this article:

                            https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/secre...earn-red-akrim

                            Clearly the Russian economy is currently in trouble. I'm not praising the consequences of Putin's actions, far from it.
                            But Putin, through fair means and foul (mostly foul and even despicable), has led.
                            His goals and the methods to achieve them are not laudable and they've had serious consequences. But he has led.

                            Obama has done anything but. He has dithered and divided. As I said, even his staunchest supports have been left sorely disappointed and disillusioned. Quite the remarkable come-down from 2008, when anything seemed possible and people were literally swooning in the streets.

                            That, more than anything, is my point.
                            "action" without result is meaningless. in fact, Putin's actions have been detrimental to Russian strength and influence. can anyone state that Russian strength and influence today is greater than that of eight years ago?

                            so if that's leadership, heavens preserve us from it!
                            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                              "action" without result is meaningless. in fact, Putin's actions have been detrimental to Russian strength and influence. can anyone state that Russian strength and influence today is greater than that of eight years ago?

                              so if that's leadership, heavens preserve us from it!
                              I'll take that up. NATO expansion is stopped cold. Both Georgia and the Ukraines will not get NATO membership if only because it would be military suicide to do so. Both Georgia and the Ukraines might be gearing to the West but they will have to satisfy Russia's security concerns.

                              Israeli air power is effectively neutralized and Assad's survival is no longer under threat.
                              Chimo

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                                joe,
                                "action" without result is meaningless. in fact, Putin's actions have been detrimental to Russian strength and influence. can anyone state that Russian strength and influence today is greater than that of eight years ago?

                                so if that's leadership, heavens preserve us from it!
                                I daresay that Russian strength and influence has taken a massive shove upwards in the past 8 years.

                                Besides what the Colonel said, I see Western Europe startled and Eastern Europe frightened, like they haven't been since 1991.

                                I see the U.S. sending troops and equipment into what should've been the backwater of military concerns.

                                I see a resurgent Russia. And a cowed United States.
                                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X