Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

[PeterMP]

 Like it or not, majority of the posters in ES political threads are to the left of center in varying degrees. I think most of you consider me right of center, and I know a lot of people on the right that think I'm some liberal; that is to say - i'm not very far right, but I find few I agree with here. In fact, I seem to find myself agreeing with someone on an issue when I was arguing with them on a different one the day before...

 

I find this idea that a white male dominated board is left of center laughable.  I'm to the right of every female that I know in my age/education/socioeconomic circle.

 

I'm to the right of my wife and every single one of her friends.

[tshile]

I find this idea that a white male dominated board is left of center laughable.  I'm to the right of every female that I know in my age/education/socioeconomic circle.

 

I'm to the right of my wife and every single one of her friends.

 

Not the board - active posters in the political threads. Little bit of a difference.

 

I'm not complaining... i find myself learning more from the left than the right

[Redskins Diehard]

I find this idea that a white male dominated board is left of center laughable. I'm to the right of every female that I know in my age/education/socioeconomic circle.

I'm to the right of my wife and every single one of her friends.

Your evidence does not support your assertion. I'm to the left of the people i work with and pretty much all of my friends from the Army.

[RVAbrendan]

I will tell you a secret.  It's also what Kilmer was talking about earlier.  It's a red and blue world.  Blue turns on red, red turns on blue.  It's not 1 way.

Blue also turns on blue. In my little bubble of social media, I'm already seeing Hill-heads and Sanderistas going at it. The back and forth is pretty heated, too. 

[JMS]

This is a perceptual trap and a standard that none other need to rise too. Jeb's war chest was considered a strength, not a sign that he was beholden. Cruz, Rubio, and everyone else who's running (with a qualified exception going to Trump and Sanders) all receive big time donations.

That's because the republicans and democrats typically don't hold elections they hold auctions... The candidate with the largest war chest typically assumes the air of inevitability.

I disagree with your premise though, a record fundraising drive even for an incumbent... Meaning Hillary is planning on raising more money than any sitting President is concerning.. Especially so when she's demurring on breaking op the too big to fail banks, and reinstalling Glass Stegall, and single payer universal coverage, and Tuition reform, and pharma reform. As for Bush, Cruz, Rubio.. they are republicans everybody understands they've sold their souls ( least rented them out). Republicans will stand up proudly and tell you they are bought and paid for; their platform is no regulation, pure free market, big business and private sector is always right. Why wouldn't big business support any republican?

It's different for Hillary... she's again trying to have it both ways.. She wants to say she's a hard nosed reforming progressive which many in her party believe we need, yet her campaign check book, that of her super PAC and that of her foundation all say; she's a darling of big business.

Hillary wants it both ways.. I'll tell you though if she actually did have a track record of accomplishment the left wouldn't care.. Her track record however is that of telling the left they are unrealistic for seeking meaningful reform; while she compromises to the middle and leaves criminals to their criminal pursuits and continues to milk the system for hundreds of millions do dollars..

 

What I kind of object to is the killing Hillary over it while giving others a pass. It's sort of like killing Hillary over the email thing when Colin Powell and Condi Rice did the same thing. In fact, recent reports show that Condi had numerous classified documents on her private email server.

Is Clinton then a unique devil or are we prey to the games of the manipulators?

I don't think the people who are critical of Hillary's multiple record setting checkbooks are giving anybody a pass. I think they are embracing Bernie who net worth is about what Hillary got for giving a single one hour speech on wall street last year. A guy who doesn't have a Foundation or a Super Pac.

[twa]

Your evidence does not support your assertion. I'm to the left of the people i work with and pretty much all of my friends from the Army.

 

This finding center stuff is tough, I'm considered a liberal in some circles (Though not here usually)

 

I agree with Tshile

[JMS]

Blue also turns on blue. In my little bubble of social media, I'm already seeing Hill-heads and Sanderistas going at it. The back and forth is pretty heated, too.

Yep you are going to see more of that too. I think Bernie did very well in last nights debate and the polls have moved dramatically to help him close the gap..

So now you are going to see a full court press on Bernie to end his campaign for the good of the party... They are going to tell Bernie look who would you rather have a republican in office who totally disagrees with you or Hillary who tacitly agrees with you on everything... The pitch will conclude like this..." Bernie, do you have 1 or 2 issues you really care about"... we'll make them happen, you will have moved the party.. You can't win this.. Let Hillary bring it home..

To which I hope Bernie tells them to go to hell.

[JMS]

I'm not sure. There may be some truth that Democrats really liked McCain until he was nominated. Republicans will probably turn on him hard if he gets the nod, but that's true of any Dem really.

Democrats and more important Moderates did like John McCain. John McCain was simplely the most popular politician in the country back in 2004. The problem was in order to get his party's nomination he had to spend 4 years retracting every meaningful accomplishment of his career... including passing legislation which literally legalized torture. After he won the nomination their really was nothing appealing left of the man. Conservatives hated him, and moderates hated him. Same thing happened to Romney.. He was selected in part because he was a moderate and had broad appeal. By the time he got the nomination he was referring to himself as a severe conservative, flip flop'd on every achievement he ever had as an elected official and was caught on tape essentially giving up on (51%) the majority of Americans.

[twa]

Then they did not like McCain, they just enjoyed him thumbing his nose at conservatives 

 

He was the same old McCain

[Larry]

Democrats and more important Moderates did like John McCain. John McCain was simplely the most popular politician in the country back in 2004. The problem was in order to get his party's nomination he had to spend 4 years retracting every meaningful accomplishment of his career... including passing legislation which literally legalized torture. After he won the nomination their really was nothing appealing left of the man. Conservatives hated him, and moderates hated him. Same thing happened to Romney.. He was selected in part because he was a moderate and had broad appeal. By the time he got the nomination he was referring to himself as a severe conservative, flip flop'd on every achievement he ever had as an elected official and was caught on tape essentially giving up on (51%) the majority of Americans.

 

In short, he did exactly what Bernie is forcing Hillary to do. 

 

Hope you like how the story ends. 

[JMS]

Is it just coincidence that Dem appointments don't have a "freedom of political pressure" moment?

 

I agree that the GOP is doing that now.  But what explains the lack of "mistakes" made by Dems?  Are they not doing similar things to ensure their picks pan out?  Was their ever a chance that Sotomayor or Ginsberg wasn't going to be a staunch liberal Justice?

you never know what you are going to get when you put a person on the court. The dems have had their fair share of disappointments too.

Byron (Whizzer) White was a Kennedy nominee, and turned out to be a very conservative justice and the longest serving justice in the history of the court. I think the reason you feel the GOP has been so "unlucky?", is because they've appointed 12 of the last 16 justices... So they've simple had more chances to be "disappointed"..

[twa]

In short, he did exactly what Bernie is forcing Hillary to do. 

 

Hope you like how the story ends. 

 

Forcing?

 

Only thing forcing her is her thirst for power.

[JMS]

In short, he did exactly what Bernie is forcing Hillary to do. 

 

Hope you like how the story ends.

I think weak candidates who try to be something they are not should be defeated. I and many people I suspect would have more respect for Hillary if she ran as a moderate, or even moderate conservative, and try to honestly make a case for her ideas as Bernie has.

As it is she keeps quiet, adopts Bernie's campaign ideas, ( Universal healthcare, Tuition reform, etc...)

and tries to have it both ways.. She's not fooling anybody, and she has nobody to blame but herself if she looses.

[Larry]

Then they did not like McCain, they just enjoyed him thumbing his nose at conservatives

He was the same old McCain

Forcing?

 

Only thing forcing her is her thirst for power.

 

Admiring the contrast between the reaction to McCain changing his policies, and Hillary changing hers. 

 

In back to back posts. 

 

What a difference the color of a jersey makes.

[PeterMP]

Your evidence does not support your assertion. I'm to the left of the people i work with and pretty much all of my friends from the Army.

 

How about this about 15% of Americans think we should pay reparations to blacks based on slavery.

 

And it is essentially never even ever a topic here.  Realistically, there is about as much support for completely banning abortions in this country than paying reparations based on polls.

 

Realistically, that isn't the impression you'd get from reading this board where abortion is a frequent topic driven many times by pro-life posters, while I don't think there's been anybody here in my time posting that's ever on a regular basis driven conversations towards paying for reparations.

 

Find the issues that matter to the right in the 10-20% range, and they get discussed here regularly.  Those same types of issues on the left don't get discussed here much at all.

 

Now part of that is because the extremism on the right drives news and conversations, but the net effect is that's what the board reflects.

[twa]

 

Admiring the contrast between the reaction to McCain changing his policies, and Hillary changing hers. 

 

In back to back posts. 

 

What a difference the color of a jersey makes.

 

I could barely stomach him before or after...he was the same old Mccain....you can go back and check my posts

[JMS]

This finding center stuff is tough, I'm considered a liberal in some circles (Though not here usually)

 

I agree with Tshile

It's not about good or bad, right or wrong... It's about where you find motivation when you face a problem.

Do you look to the passed to what has worked before, and tweak it.. the safe predictable solution.. But often also a compromise because hey their was a reason we changed.. Then you are a conservative.

Do you look for something which has never been tried here before... not as safe, not as predictable, potentially flat out worse; but also potentially great.. Then you are a liberal.

I think their are times in our nations history when we've needed both. Frankly nothing would work very well if we were always trying to reinvent the wheel and could never be satisfied with what is working well or even kind of working well.

On the other hand their is no social progress without Liberalism..

Guys like the founding fathers who set out to form a new kind of government never seen before and who revolted from the only king they had ever know. Guys like Lincon who abolished slavery an institution and economy which had been with us for hundred and hundreds of years...

[chipwhich]

I could barely stomach Hillary before or after...she is the same old Hillary....you can go back and check my posts

[Larry]

Peter, I think there's a lot more support for banning all abortions, in this country.

I will observe that at least one current Presidential candidates has declared his support for that position. (He's the one that's winning, and who's hailed as the moderate one.)
 

[Predicto]

There is a difference between respecting a person and voting for a politician.  

 

I respected John McCain as a war hero and an honest man.  He was still too conservative for me ever to want him to be my president.  He had two issues where he was a "maverick" but on everything else he was extremely conservative.  So I appreciated his independent streak, but I still did not ever want him to be president.  

 

When he seemed to abandon some of his principles to appeal to the religious right, and especially when he picked Sarah Palin as VP, I lost some respect for him, but it didn't change my vote.  I was never going to vote for him.  

 

Too many Americans seem to vote based on who they "like" personally.  Candidate X seems like a nice guy, I could have a beer with him, he says some good buzz words and made a funny joke, Immagunna vote for him.  

 

I don't need to like my president.  I don't care if he or she is a complete asshole.  I want them to be competent, intelligent, well-rounded, realistic and non-extremist, and I want them to have a world view that is reasonably close to mine (not exactly the same, I know it doesn't work that way).  I want them to do the most difficult job in the world as well as possible.  I don't give a **** about their personality.  

 

I like John Kacich.  Seems like a nice, honest guy.  I don't like Ted Cruz.  Seems like a complete asshole.  

 

But I'm not a hypocrite when I say that I like John Kacich now, and if he gets the nomination I still don't vote for him.   

[BornaSkinsFan83]

Or that both America's are equally crazy/misinformed.

Eh I always think the whole "they equally suck" argument is a cop out and let's one side or the other off the hook.

Folks can decide on their own who sucks more. I just know for me, only one side bows down to the likes of Beck, a Limbaugh, Trump and Co.

[JMS]

Admiring the contrast between the reaction to McCain changing his policies, and Hillary changing hers. 

 

In back to back posts. 

 

What a difference the color of a jersey makes.

Politically it can be a great advantage to be flexible an tell folks what they want to hear. The problem is if you do it too often you look like a panderer..

The reason why Bill Clinton was so good at it.. was he had no track record when he came to Washington as President.. Nobody knew him.. Once he got in, pushing to the middle and try to circle the greatest number of voters made him more powerful. Liberals couldn't do anything about it, because he flat out told them.. where you going to go? you going to vote Republican? Not an option.. So he had them... That's one way to lead.. Hillary is having trouble following that path because she has a track record, so now when she calls herself a progressive having never done so before this election in nearly 25 years of politics; liberals just groan.

The other philosophy is to do what Reagan did, what George Jr did, what Bernie is trying to do.. You tell people who you are and you make your case.... ( George Jr. did it after his first election... Reagan never tried to moderate his conservatism to score political points.. ). That's also what Bernie is trying to do.. Move the center of the country.

[PeterMP]

Peter, I think there's a lot more support for banning all abortions, in this country.

I will observe that at least one current Presidential candidates has declared his support for that position. (He's the one that's winning, and who's hailed as the moderate one.)

 

 

Gallup put it at 19% for a complete ban.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

 

A yougov poll put paying CASH reparations at 15%.

 

https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/06/02/reparations/

 

We don't even ever discuss reparations in the context of job training here.

 

That you see somebody on the right doing well in the election, but you don't see the extreme left POV represented at all in the election is part of my point despite there only be a 4% difference in national polls (I'd be willing to bet that's about the margin of error in the polls).  The extreme on the right is better funded and better organized so they get more attention, but that ends up being what we talk about and that organization and funding has other aspects with respect to people's ability and willingness to access technology and talk about those topics and therefore drive the conversation (i.e. start threads and make lots of post on the topic).

 

Maybe you can argue the people on the extreme right care more, but the extreme left point is at least still out there and doesn't get discussed here or at the national level (in general) nearly as much.

[PeterMP]

The other philosophy is to do what Reagan did, what George Jr did, what Bernie is trying to do.. You tell people who you are and you make your case.... ( George Jr. did it after his first election... Reagan never tried to moderate his conservatism to score political points.. ). That's also what Bernie is trying to do.. Move the center of the country.

 

A lot of people run as something else and then govern another way.

 

Reagan almost certainly ran to the right of what he actually was in conservative areas.  You look at this talk about the SALTII and then what he did.

 

Even on taxes, he didn't actually govern from the right.  His Supreme Court nominees were easily to the left of George Bush 1.

 

The CFC ban was Reagan's.

 

I think it is gotten harder to do with the ability to record things anywhere at any time and then access that information years later.  

 

Reagan could go into Mississippi and give a speech on "states' rights" with a wink and a nod and people in Massachusetts would probably never hear about it, and if they did, wouldn't be told its significance.

 

Today such a thing would be all over twitter in an hour.  I think a lot of politicians are still adjusting.

[Larry]

Reagan could go into Mississippi and give a speech on "states' rights" with a wink and a nod and people in Massachusetts would probably never hear about it, and if they did, wouldn't be told its significance.

 

Today such a thing would be all over twitter in an hour.  I think a lot of politicians are still adjusting.

Actually, Reagan did, at least once (I'm pretty sure, multiple times) announce that he supported "state's rights". And the media tried to tar and feather him for it.

I even remember a Mark Russel routine, mocking it, in which he supposedly gave us several "political code words", and their actual meanings. I thought only one of them was any good. But that one, I remember:

When a politician says "I support a strong national defense, including a four ocean navy", what he's really saying is either " Gee, it's great to be here in Norfolk", or "Gee, it's great to be here in San Diego".