tarricoe

United States 2016 Election

93 posts in this topic
4 minutes ago, Chaucerin said:

It is also obvious when she speaks that everything is going through a filter, and her words seem chosen specifically to avoid an indictment.

 

I think you're absolutely right. What I find interesting about this is that politics has always been about crafted messages and planned public appearance. Being a politician is about calculated publicity and strategic behaviour. So what's odd to me is essentially that the Clintons get a lot of flack for being experts in politics. (I'm vaguely reminded of president Bartlet's image problems as an academic elitist in The West Wing.)

 

Authenticity is certainly a virtue in American politics, I'm not blind to that, it's just that the Clintons are hardly the only political operatives who don't do authenticity well. And more often than not, authenticity is equally crafted performance. And I personally don't find it repelling for politicians to consider their actions and their public perception to a great degree, but I'm Classical Roman that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kubrikistan said:

Authenticity is certainly a virtue in American politics...

For me, one of the great contradictions of American culture is the false pursuit of authenticity. Americans seem to want the appearance of authenticity, but only to the extent that it always agrees with them. Donald Trump is being authentic. but he's vile so he may not count.

 

If someone holds a sincere opinion but it is outside of political orthodoxy, they are shunned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Chaucerin said:

I think that Secretary Clinton is far less dishonest than President Clinton, but the fault for it seems to stick to her more.

I could Opine some Opinions about why she is judged by and held to a higher standard - or, perhaps, why her ratings depend far more on that standard than his do - but I think perhaps you have heard that one before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Astarial said:

I could Opine some Opinions about why she is judged by and held to a higher standard - or, perhaps, why her ratings depend far more on that standard than his do - but I think perhaps you have heard that one before.

I'd love to hear it again, because I think you're right. :)

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Chaucerin said:

If someone holds a sincere opinion but it is outside of political orthodoxy, they are shunned.

 

*chuckles*  Pretty much why I mostly stay out of these threads. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Westwind said:

Pretty much why I mostly stay out of these threads.

I meant in the realm of American politics generally. Hopefully, we aren't like that here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Chaucerin said:

This encapsulates the view of most people regarding Secretary Clinton. If you really think about it, she's okay...I suppose.

 

If you look at her track record as a Senator or Secretary of State, there should be more enthusiasm for her.

 

In my opinion, there is a characteristic to her political self that turns people off. Both President Clinton and Secretary Clinton have this problem to different degrees, but Mr. Clinton seems to have been able to deflect it more with personal charm. Also, to be fair, he used up a lot of her personal capital.

 

That characteristic is dishonesty.

 

The Clintons may be the most carefully spun and triangulated political entity ever and they pioneered a new level in political speech. It was only with infuriating struggle that you can get a straight answer out of them on anything even remotely controversial. I think that Secretary Clinton is far less dishonest than President Clinton, but the fault for it seems to stick to her more. It is also obvious when she speaks that everything is going through a filter, and her words seem chosen specifically to avoid an indictment.

 

This is a pretty accurate summary of my feelings toward her. I can't trust Hillary Clinton, therefore I cannot in good conscience give her my unquestioning consent to govern over me. In this case, I consider my vote to be my consent to be governed over. However, I'm not saying I'd choose Trump over her if that's my options. I'll write in Bernie Sanders, in the end, it won't matter. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Chaucerin said:

I meant in the realm of American politics generally. Hopefully, we aren't like that here.

 

I'm afraid that I do feel that way about here.  You know, I've made about three long posts in recent days and abandoned every single one so I don't have to go through the beating of the replies.  I'm not up to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Westwind said:

 

I'm afraid that I do feel that way about here.  You know, I've made about three long posts in recent days and abandoned every single one so I don't have to go through the beating of the replies.  I'm not up to it.

 

While I'm certainly not the best at articulating my disagreement with something, I hope that I've never made anyone feel shunned around here. :hug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equilism is a liberal oriented region, which is nothing new.  Anyone outside that, is in for potentially being taken to task, whether they want it or not.  I've have other players tell me they don't like Equilism for this very reason.  I invite them, they say 'No, I just don't like Equilism.  It's a good region, but I'm not comfortable there with their liberalism.'  This is among our friends, not strangers.  We've only had one true conservative here, Neo Conservatism, and he was certainly able to hold his own through the power of his convictions and love of political debate.  

 

But I'm only distracting from the conversation, which I didn't intend.  Just wanted to point out that you're not going to get alternate input the way some of the commentary has been presented. It's off-putting at the least. And that leads to an echo chamber, which begins to be generated when you only have one sided ideas. And thus leads to shunning the 'other side'. I lurk around the echo chambers on the right and the left, they're both awful.  Anyway, personally, I'm usually uncomfortable here myself. So I mostly keep quiet.  I try to get involved and participate, but it always comes to the point that it's time for me to shut up. I won't put myself through it.:grandpa:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what West brought up is worth discussing and we shouldn't just drop it because it's off-topic for this thread. Could we split threads so that U.S. politics could continue unimpeded and we could have a more thorough discussion on Equilism's discourse? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think what West brought up is worth discussing and we shouldn't just drop it because it's off-topic for this thread. Could we split threads so that U.S. politics could continue unimpeded and we could have a more thorough discussion on Equilism's discourse? 

 

The Anti-Echo Chamber

 

How about in there?

Edited by Hyper Hippies
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hyper Hippies said:

 

The Anti-Echo Chamber

 

How about in there?

 

Great!

 

Returning to the topic of Republican convention, there was a piece in New York Times about the possible legal manoeuvres the delegates could perform to throw cogs in Trump's nomination. The most intriguing, albeit most complicated, was to change the rules of procedure for the convention itself; either to remove Trump's eligibility or reduce eligibility requirements to allow all former contenders for the Republican nomination (Carson et al.) to stand for the nomination in the convention.

 

That would certainly cause impressive amount of chaos in the Republican convention and most likely lead to wide-spread dissatisfaction of the Republican voters in states that elected Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kubrikistan said:

change the rules of procedure for the convention itself; either to remove Trump's eligibility or reduce eligibility requirements to allow all former contenders

 

I read a similar story on Politico before the most recent primary.

 

The story right now is that Republicans are so bothered by Trump that they must do something or (gasp) *anything* to prevent him from locking up the nomination. I'm not sure that this is true anymore. In fact, the more I read and listen, the more I'm being convinced that it's not.

 

A bunch of the other candidates for the nomination have already endorsed him. This includes Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and Rick Perry. Other leaders of the party have come on board and this includes John McCain and Senate Lead Mitch McConnell.

 

The only notable holdout is Paul Ryan and I think only yesterday that he and Trump called a truce, agreeing to "work together".

 

The Bush family and some other politicians Like Senator Graham have refused to budge, but that isn't of much consequence. Not sure where I read this, but someone quoted that 82% of Republicans in a recent poll indicated that they would vote for Trump.

 

And of course they will. Why wouldn't they?

 

In the choice between a bad Republican and any Democrat, the current climate dictates that they vote for the Republican. The reverse I feel would hold as well. The contempt between the parties in the US is really quite mad.

 

You will certainly get some slice of Republicans who will not vote for Trump because he is Trump. You will likely get some national security Republicans who will prefer to vote for Secretary Clinton because of her record in that regard. But you will also get some independents and Democrats who will vote for Mr. Trump because of their own reasons.

 

An insurgent like Senator Cruz might take a run at the rules committee, but I really think that the party has surrendered to Mr. Trump. They've resolved to ride out the cycle, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chaucerin said:

An insurgent like Senator Cruz might take a run at the rules committee, but I really think that the party has surrendered to Mr. Trump. They've resolved to ride out the cycle, I think.

 

And looking at it from the point of view of democracy, that's pretty much as it should be. No matter how repelling Trump is to some people, even in the Republican base, he has the support of the majority of (primary voters of) his party. Hence, he should be the nominee, and any underhanded tricks to change the rules of the game midgame would be badly received.

 

We had a quite similar situation in Finland in the last Parliamentary elections. A party running on much the same issues as Trump, and popular among much the same demographics, rose to second most popular. As our governments are coalition governments from the ideologically compatible winning parties of each election, the right basically had no choice but the include them in government.

 

A lot of people opposed their party and abhorred them in government, but that's how the people voted. And the people's will is sovereign in modern democracies. Similarly, I feel, both the Republican party and the whole of the U.S. now need to deal with the fact that Trump is appealing and popular. For those Republicans who don't think like him, maybe this will be a wake-up call (as has been foretold in this thread :P). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regretfully, I think Tjausse is probably right here.

 

I don't think there is any viable Republican candidate who would actually be likely to win in the general election. Maybe Kasich, even though he wouldn't inspire the base, since he would be moderate enough to pull a number of people who will vote for Clinton because she is better than Trump/Cruz/whatever but who don't actually like her or want to vote for her.

 

As a result, the Republican party is either going to lose with a candidate the people have chosen, and thus be relatively blameless and might even come out ahead ("We TOLD you he was bad news, but nobody listened!")... or they can lose with a candidate they have engineered into the spot, in which case they will seriously anger much of the party - not just the base, but also others who aren't a fan of high-handed meddling.

 

At this point, I think the only really sensible option for them is to minimize the fallout and the impact Trump's nomination will have on congressional or state-level races.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

l am SO TIRED OF THIS RACE!  God, I just want there to be time limits already!  The primary races can't be declared or campaigned for until January, or something.  Even then, this process is taking WAY too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anyone missed it, here's the 3rd and final debate between Clinton and Trump:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now