Featured New Release

Studio: Jules Jordan Video
Release date: 8/12/2019


All smartbuydisc.rus > World News Nonsense > The 2016 Elections Thread > The 2016 Elections Thread (page 80)
Page 80 of 82 First < 55 68 70 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 > Last
AuthorPost
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Jul 28 2017 : 11:40PM
^
Thanks for those links. You can still place things of that nature in either Trump Watch (things the administration is actively doing) Trump's Amerikkka (things influenced by Trump or articles about Trump) or The Resistance.

Member

524 Posts
3/14
Posted - Aug 2 2017 : 6:46AM
What a GREAT SUMMATION of that CHARACTER NAMED Trump FROM CNN:--President Trump's turn toward a general who radiates a calm sense of command signals he is truly distressed. North Korea's missile tests, massive legislative failures and record-low poll numbers would rattle anyone, but must surely be worse for a man whose constant claims to confidence and success suggest that he is, in fact, deeply conflicted about his own competence.
In addition, for a man who prizes loyalty and surrounds himself with family instead of those with policy expertise, Donald Trump's elevation of John Kelly to a position in which Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner will report to him instead of directly to the President further speaks to a sense of inner panic. A respected Marine Corps general, Kelly is expected to bring order to a White House that is perhaps the most chaotic and dysfunctional in history but is so burdened by infighting and intrigue that officials generally avoid uttering obvious truths, except when they leak to reporters.
Given his limited public persona, on the other hand -- which consists of little more than brags, insults and crude observations -- Donald Trump's true moods and motives can be difficult to discern. Trump can seem like a human sound system with the volume set so high every note just sounds like noise.
With so much dissonance, one bizarre week in the Trump presidency can blend into another and eventually they all seem the same. They are not. Last week stands apart: sexual innuendo in a speech to Boy Scouts, urging police to rough up suspects, suddenly barring military service for transgender Americans, revolving-door turmoil in the West Wing. It all points to a President/performer who knows he is losing his audience and can't figure out how to give them what they want.
When pressed to the edge of panic, Trump will modify his behavior. In the 1990s, for example, he became a quieter, less braggadocious Trump when his casinos went bankrupt and his airline business failed. The first sign that Trump was in panic mode last week came as he brought Anthony Scaramucci onto the stage, naming him White House communications chief. In Italian theater, a scaramuccia is a menacing court jester who inevitably falls from grace and Trump's jester fit the archetype perfectly, ousting Sean Spicer and Reince Priebus before -- in a stunning bit of political theater, "The Mooch" and his profane, on-the-record tirade became a bigger laughingstock than the men at whom he had aimed his blade.
Spicer and Priebus were easy prey because the dramatist (read President) had introduced them to us as characters who would inevitably be killed off.
As Priebus and Spicer were humiliated and driven away, you could almost hear the snickers in the audience. The dismissal of the preening Scaramucci, on the other hand, came with the power of a lightning strike. Then, as the smoke cleared, the world could see the figure of John Kelly, the new chief of staff. The President's affection for military men was noted during the 2016 campaign, when he talked about Gen. George "Blood and Guts" Patton as if he were a perfect hero and not the troublesome brute whom Eisenhower called a "problem child." However, the President's fascination with strong military men goes back much further and is far more primal.
As an unruly boy, Trump was suddenly sent away by his father to attend a military school renowned for its harsh discipline. (As he told me, it was the kind of place where the grown men in uniforms "smacked you around.") At the academy, Trump adopted a barking World War II veteran named Theodore Dobias as a substitute father. As Dobias once recalled for me, Trump was "the most manipulative" boy he ever encountered and through his wheedling and pleasing, got everything he wanted. Before he was finished, Trump was marching down Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, sun glistening off the brass of his uniform, at the head of the corps marching in the Columbus Day parade.
Although young Trump escaped serving through a series of academic and medical deferments, the President was so enamored of the military style that 50 years later, he would speak lovingly to me of Brasso polish and spit-shined shoes. As Kelly takes charge, he doesn't need to show up in a uniform bedecked with medals to keep the President's admiration and support. As Trump accepted Kelly's demand that his buddy Scaramucci be dismissed, he demonstrated he is willing to give the general what he wants, including respect -- and, perhaps the obedience of his own children, in exchange for his leadership.
As he sets to work, Kelly for his part will undoubtedly seek to end the deception and bumbling that have characterized the White House under a President whose impulse is to deny and distort whatever facts displease him. Kelly no doubt considers this work an act of public service for a country which, under President Trump, is fast losing credibility around the world.
His biggest challenge resides in the fact that most of the turmoil can be traced to a President who is, himself, undisciplined. The good news is that Trump has allowed himself to be controlled by military men in the past. However, any hope in this history must be tempered with the fact that the panicking President does not wear integrity well and can be expected to revert to chaos as soon as he feels comfortable again.

Senior Member

3603 Posts
3/14
Posted - Aug 2 2017 : 7:38AM
^ Well said.

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 2 2017 : 10:52AM
^^
Really, truly funny.
Scaramucci’s name comes from the Italian word for a ‘controversy of little importance’.
Sort of like a tempest in a teapot, or full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.
Bwahaha. "English terms hardly convey the nuances of the Italian word, which implies gratuitousness, pettiness and, more often than not, clownish behavior."
quoting Wikipedia:
“Scaramouche, Scaramouche, can you do the fandango?”
Man, I should have seen this sooner. The guy was gone before I did. At least the song will stop playing in my head, now.
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - Aug 2 2017 : 10:58AM
None of this belongs here on the thread for the election, though.
Please take further stuff to Trump Watch.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Aug 22 2017 : 12:06AM
More from Harvard:
Summary: Donald Trump succeeded in shaping the election agenda. Coverage of Trump overwhelmingly outperformed coverage of Clinton. Clinton’s coverage was focused on scandals, while Trump’s coverage focused on his core issues.
The most telling chart:
Media Coverage.jpg
Edited by - Smiler Grogan on 8/22/2017 12:14:59 AM

Member

524 Posts
3/14
Posted - Oct 10 2017 : 4:24PM
This thread, understandably, since it's a 2016 Election thread, experiences little traffic anymore.
But I really hope that someone like Smiler Grogan sees this post which will be a copy of a post that I just fired at the Trumpies who are on a President Trump thread over at LezLoveVideo's smartbuydisc.ru.
I just wrote the post this afternoon (Tuesday Oct. 10th) and putting aside any false modesty, I think that it may be my ultimate masterpiece in taking apart Trump. I was writing the post in response to a man calling himself Skyhawk, to counter the claim he had just made that if the economy keeps growing and America is not at war, Donald Trump's re-election in 2020 is a sure thing.
Hope that anyone who might ever stumble across my post, really gets a kick out of it.
So here goes: "There's only one thing wrong with your assessment: It's delusional. Many Americans consistently tell survey takers that the more they learn about Trump, the more that they dislike him, even while they're seeing our economy constantly improving.
And polling by Fox News bears that out. Because although the economy has been getting better, with the stock market setting records, during the almost 10 months that Trump has been President, Fox News polling simply shows that as time goes on and people get to know Trump better, fewer and fewer Americans can stomach him.
For example, in April, the Fox News poll measured Donald's public approval level at 45%. But as more time passed and the economy kept getting better and better, in spite of that, Trump's public approval, as measured by Fox, had fallen to 35% by September, with 64% of the people disapproving of Donald, according to the Fox News poll. And some much more recent polling by another organization measured approval of Trump at 32% and disapproval of him at 67%. So as America's economic situation has gotten better Donald Trump has managed an achievement almost totally unique among American Presidents: Having his acceptability with the public consistently falling while the economy has been consistently rising.
The reason that a rising economy does no good for Donald's popularity is because well more than half of Americans have been telling survey takers exactly what Bob Corker has just begun saying: That Trump is an unstable President who lies constantly. And that opinion among so many Americans is why those people simply don't believe that a character like Trump has been responsible for any of the economic improvements that they see.
BTW, Trump was just speaking at the White House this morning about so called "tax reform" but as Congress struggles with trying to turn the Trump favored GOP tax plan into law, the American people will be learning that Trump's idea of tax reform is actually a gigantic "tax reward" for wealthy donors to the GOP, like himself, with the Trump family saving 2 to 4 Billion dollars if the Federal Estate Tax elimination that Trump's claimed "tax reform" is calling for, becomes law. How about that, the elimination of the Estate Tax, which only extremely wealthy Americans pay, would be worth at least 2 Billion dollars or 2 thousand times a million dollars to the Trump family. Now under that plan, a family making one hundred thousand dollars a year could actually receive a tax cut as large as one thousand dollars. But folks, the 2 thousand times a million dollar savings that the GOP tax plan's elimination of the Estate Tax would provide for Trump's heirs is exactly equal in value to 2 million times a thousand dollars. So in one fell swoop, the Trumps would save an amount exactly equal to the total that 2 million American families would save that year by each getting a thousand dollar tax cut. And BTW, under that GOP plan someone making $49,000 a year would get a tax cut worth between $400 and $500 a year. WOW, that's a tax cut of $8 to $10 a week, that'll really raise an American's standard of living!!
I honestly have no idea what's wrong with the ability of Trump supporters to be capable of critical thinking, but I'll tell you, most people in that large majority of Americans who disapprove of the President will not be mindless enough to believe Trump's claim "I'm for fighting for you" when they find out about the kind of outrageous windfall that the elimination of the Estate Tax would provide for people who already have more wealth than is contained in the entire economies that some of the world's smaller countries have.
The Federal Estate Tax has been in place since 1916, the very wealthy have always done fine living with it, but it's elimination would add about 340 Billion dollars to the national debt over 10 years, and ultimately that additional debt will have negative effects on all American families, in terms of higher interest rates, as well as causing a greater need to cut programs that help the middle class and the poor.
Yes Trump fans, as usual, I see no complaining from you guys about Donald's current con job, which is his claim that the GOP's proposed tax plan would not benefit wealthy people like those of his family.
But actually, you gentlemen, and all other Americans who aren't extremely wealthy, should be quite pissed off by this latest fraud that Trump is now attempting to pull on all of us.
However, you guys always display such blind loyalty to Trump that I honestly think that it's slightly within the realm of the possible, that if each of you men was invited to take turns having a private meeting in the Oval Office with President Trump, and during each meeting Donald requested that the man he was meeting with, stand up, drop his pants, and let Trump fuck him in the ass, there might be very few objections heard from you guys concerning what Donald wanted to do to you.
After all, you men should be intelligent enough to now be making objections to how Donald is promoting a tax plan that would symbolically fuck 99% of Americans in the ass, by saddling the whole country with more debt, while providing an incredible amount of gain for extremely wealthy people like the Trumps.
And yet, I still have not seen any objections from you men about Donald's proposed butt fucking of the American people. It would be nice to think that you guys might wake up someday, but as I learned from Skyhawk, some Trump followers care so little about America, and what takes place here, that they don't even listen to what their President says.
It's pretty hard for a Trump fan to know how defective his leader is, if he doesn't even listen to Donald.
So, most of you suckers will just remain asleep, and totally unaware of the very obvious fact that Donald really is fighting for a certain group of Americans, but that there's no way that elite group includes any people like you. If you guys would just use your brains to think for 5 minutes, then you'd be sure that Donald isn't fighting for your interests.
Well, at least, unlike you men, the 2 out of 3 Americans who are now rejecting Trump do seem to be listening to what he says, and that's why they know that he's full of shit.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Oct 10 2017 : 5:29PM
^ I do not frequent too many boards if they're not moderated. I get kicked out for being an asshole (aka just telling the truth about the GOP)
But I find your comment typical of what many say. I hate to say it's the norm, but...it's the norm. There is that unshakeable 33-38% that's not going to listen to a bad word against Trump.

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1629 Posts
5/08
Posted - Oct 10 2017 : 5:52PM
^^burn.jpg
Good stuff. The people who still support Trump (whose numbers are thankfully declining, as you pointed out) are so used to defending him, they don't stop to think about the nature of the criticisms. In their minds, any criticism of Trump's ideas are nothing more than an attack on their god-emperor made by 'angry libruls', so they simply reject it. Before the election, I had no idea that there were so many stupid people in this country. I honestly thought that people so stupid as to constantly accept clear and obvious lies as truth were a small minority. I had no idea that approx 1/3 of the voting public could fall victim to such a brazen liar like Trump. It's shocking, and very unfortunate, but in a way I'm glad that I was able to learn that these people existed.
I actually hope that Mnuchin, Trump and Cohn will continue to push the narrative that it's not a tax cut for the wealthy. If they remove AMT and lower the top rates, there is no way they can possibly make that argument. Those who are already against Trump will be further inflamed by lie, and the more moderate republicans will be forced to push back, further fracturing the party. Also, it will reinvigorate the call for Trump to release his tax returns. He won't do it, of course, but that shithead needs to be reminded that we haven't forgotten about it.
One thing that I've been seeing on Reddit are those who have given up. They say, "Yeah, I'm against the proposed tax reforms, but the Mercers and Kochs will make sure this gets pushed through and there's nothing we can do about it." I call bullshit on this one. Angry voters are what kept the ACA from being repealed. I think that the more moderate republicans are realizing that although having the Mercer and Koch money is nice, if people are angry enough, all the money in the world will not ensure their reelection.
Edited by - Macko69 on 10/10/2017 6:07:51 PM

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - Oct 10 2017 : 6:53PM
I'm not. All my life I wondered how countries put up with horrible leaders like Gaddafi, Hitler, Kim Jong Il, etc. It's only one guy. Why don't they just take him out? Now I know. You'd like to think that the really worst things can't happen here, and now I see all too clearly that they can.

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1629 Posts
5/08
Posted - Oct 10 2017 : 7:33PM
^Of course, I'd rather they not exist at all, but if they do, I'd much rather know about them than be ignorant to that fact. Are you saying that you'd rather be blind to their existence?
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Oct 10 2017 : 7:43PM
I was not suprised either. It's easy to forget now with the awfulness of Trump, but GW Bush lied us into a war and got away with it and GOT RE-ELECTED.
It was at that point that I knew the GOP was too far gone, and when I first started contemplating a clean divorce for America. The rise of Trumpfere only confirmed it.

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - Oct 10 2017 : 8:10PM
^^
I'm 60. I'm still hoping to be out of here before the shit really hits the fan.

Senior Member

Gone for a walk.
1629 Posts
5/08
Posted - Oct 10 2017 : 8:50PM
^You should move to Oahu. If those of us here don't die from a N. Korean nuke, we'll die of starvation or dehydration after the next hurricane hits.
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Member

524 Posts
3/14
Posted - Oct 18 2017 : 5:07PM
Smiler, I'm glad that you read my little critique of Trump, but now let me offer you a few words of encouragement.
As you must know, Joe Scarborough is the former 4-term Republican Congressman from Florida, who anchors MSNBC's show, "Morning Joe" which bears
Scarborough's first name.
On this morning's program, Scarborough was talking about how he had recently had a meal in a restaurant located in a predominantly Republican area. And Joe said that Trump would probably have been happy to know that the conversations Scarborough was hearing taking place at the other tables, all seemed to include Trump being discussed.
But Mr Scarborough also said that what probably wouldn't make "The Donald" too happy, is that none of the people overheard discussing Trump had anything good to say about him.
Smiler, maybe you already follow "Morning Joe", to some extent, because it's a great program. But in case you don't, I just wanted to pass along that little tidbit from Joe Scarborough, to you. Take care there, brother.

Edited by - Zoiper2009 on 10/18/2017 5:10:07 PM


Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - Oct 18 2017 : 6:21PM
Thanks for the reminder. I always miss it because it's over at 6am here. But they keep the last day or so 'on demand.'
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Oct 18 2017 : 8:14PM
I was going to post this in the 2020 Thread but heck, since Zoiper gave us that:
Zoiper, I am optimistic -- for the first time since last November -- that Trump will not survive a re-election.
If we have FAIR elections, and all else being equal, I just don't see it.
And it's primarily for the reason you mention -- that the normal, moderate Repubs may be ready to turn against him.
In 2004, the progressives and Dems who didn't like Al Gore were fed up with GW Bush, deserted Ralph Nader and were ready to make peace with John Kerry.
Kerry wasn't elected of course, but Bush at the time had the wide support of all Repubs and even a few Dems
It would appear Trump is lacking that. As I think I wrote somewhere before, there were many who voted for him solely on his promise to "bring the jobs back". If they don't start seeing those results, what happens to that bulwark?
Democrats have either won or come very close to wins in special elections in what were solid Republican territories last November.
Also, while we have no idea who the Dem candidate will be, it looks as though it will not be Hilary Clinton, and therefore will be someone with higher personal approval ratings.
So I'm actually feeling hopeful! Joe Scarborough was actually lukewarm gracious towards John Edwards back in 2004, giving him kind words when he was announced as Kerry's running mate, and he was admitting back then that he was concerned about the hard right social attitudes the GOP were taking. So I believe him when he talks about what he's hearing.
Now having said that, by absolutely NO means would I say that 2020 is a slam dunk for Dems: Trump is certain to use the same slash-and-burn campaign tactics as last year.
Millennials need to be wooed back to the party. Pennslyvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota are all getting older and whiter in demographics. There's opportunity in Texas, Georgia, N. Carolina and Florida, but winning those states will take hard work, and I have no confidence that the DNC is up to it.
And then; shenangins. There is absolutely nothing being done about Cyber attacks; nothing about Russian meddling; nothing about voting machine hacks. So Trump has that on his side.

Senior Member

2937 Posts
2/15
Posted - Nov 8 2017 : 5:04PM
Happy anniversary TUP.
 
All-Star Member

4629 Posts
8/11
Posted - Nov 9 2017 : 1:27AM

We have reached the anniversary of Trump's victory. One Democrat hasn't let go yet and has much to say in her new book. Add this "titanic ego" remark to a few other recent Brazile thoughts. She claims Clinton campaign treated her like a slave. Says she considered a move to replace Hillary in part because of the bad press garnered from Clinton's health problems.
Edited by - aclayfan on 11/9/2017 1:34:53 AM

Senior Member

2937 Posts
2/15
Posted - Nov 9 2017 : 1:55AM
^
From the article:
"Brazile, who assumed the DNC role in the interim following Schultz's resignation in 2016 after a trove of leaked emails showed the committee conspired to sabotage Senator Bernie Sanders's campaign"
Of course I was aware of the claims, and assumed it probably did happen, but I did not know there was documented evidence, and a senior person actually had to resign over it.
(Well of course, to white, upper class (male and female) women's activists, a first female president was far more important than a president that was more likely to actually assist disadvantaged women.)
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Nov 29 2017 : 7:08PM

Edited by - Smiler Grogan on 11/29/2017 7:11:48 PM


Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - Feb 27 2018 : 7:14PM

Senior Member

3603 Posts
3/14
Posted - Feb 28 2018 : 10:18AM
^ And they keep saying these attacks "had no influence on the outcome of the election."

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - Feb 28 2018 : 10:55AM
Well, I think the consensus for the hacking if election computers did not change any votes, but did access voter data, etc. And the consensus is that they were testing and breaching computers in order to set up something to use later. Whether a big attack will happen in 2018 or 2020, 'nobody' knows.
As far as all the twitter ad facebook trolls and bots, it isn't possible that they didn't affect the election. It's just impossible to determine how or exactly in what way. Propaganda is like advertising -- people claim they are unaffected by it, but then they buy Cheerios rather than 'Oat Ring Cereal' and they re-post stuff about how Hillary is deadly ill so we should vote for Jill Stein. The unaffected election is like the road not taken -- you never know what would have happened had you taken the other path.
to see fewer adsAdult DVD Talk is Sponsored by
email for advertising info

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - Feb 28 2018 : 11:00AM
The best course on election security is paper ballots, or a paper trail.
I love 'vote by mail' here in Oregon. But one solution is the electronic voting as it is currently done, but after you indicate your votes, you get a paper receipt showing exactly how you voted. You review it, and drop it in a ballot box.
If your receipt doesn't match your vote, we have a problem.
If there's a question about the outcome, a review of the paper ballots (receipts) can be conducted, and it makes tampering with the total vote count via computer hacking ineffective.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Feb 28 2018 : 11:16AM
exactly.
 
Golden Age Classic

13495 Posts
5/01
Posted - Feb 28 2018 : 11:23AM
It is all great until your ballots get stolen.

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - Feb 28 2018 : 11:49AM
I rather like electronic voting with a paper ballot.
You have super-easy automatic results, and a paper trail.
Oregon could go to a log-in and vote, and mail in (which could be done from home, or at town hall--the massive majority would do it from home).
But it's just lovely having no lines whatsoever, ever, and a couple of weeks to mark your ballot (researching things at leisure if needed).
Every person getting a driver's license or registering a car is asked if they are a citizen and wish to be registered to vote, so registration is also easy and automatic for almost everyone. In Canada, our tax forms had that on the first page -- are you a citzen? -- and check the box if you want to be registered to vote. But probably more people get a driver's license than file taxes. It's also hard to make claims that dead people are voting, and other nonsense, if the "dead people" are paying taxes and registering cars.
 
Golden Age Classic

13495 Posts
5/01
Posted - Feb 28 2018 : 2:58PM
I honestly liked the ability to take my time answering the questions and research them. My issue was my ballot rarely was in my mailbox when they were delivered and getting a replacement was a PITA.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Mar 21 2018 : 6:54PM
My feelings about the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica findings, as well as Russian bots; the helll with it. Social media threw fuel on the fire, but it was television more than anything else that kept Trump in business, and was the biggest influencer on the election.
Ross Douthat:

Senior Member

2937 Posts
2/15
Posted - Mar 22 2018 : 3:32AM
^ There's an article from the producers of 'The Apprentice' that explained that for the show to make sense, they had to present Trump as a self-made, mega-successful, business entrepreneur. But they were just making a TV show; they didn't think people would actually take it seriously.
Surely the 2000 election showed that America had to have a uniform voting system and ballot across the whole country. How can an individual county be able to decide the voting system it will use for a presidential election?
But it was just as obvious that it would never happen.
(I remember back in the 2000 election a journalist being asked about a uniform national ballot. They said it wasn't possible because individual states and counties like to use presidential elections to add in a few of their own things.)

Senior Member

2937 Posts
2/15
Posted - Mar 22 2018 : 3:56AM
^

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - Mar 22 2018 : 11:05PM

Senior Member

2937 Posts
2/15
Posted - Apr 24 2018 : 5:48AM
Interesting article

“There’s another part of the Bush legacy that Barbara Bush helps us better understand: the ossification of the political establishment. The former First Lady holds an unusual place in American history: wife of one president and mother of another. Her son’s ascension to the Oval Office was a warning flare, a sign that something was amiss within the GOP. The 2016 campaign of her other son, Jeb, combined with the candidacy of former First Lady Hillary Clinton, confirmed it.
 
Barbara Bush herself was aware of this problem. When asked in 2013 if her son should run for president, she readily dismissed the idea. Though asserting Jeb was “by far the best qualified man”, the family had already had too many bites of the apple. “We’ve had enough Bushes."
And perhaps the Clinton family had too many bites as well. Whatever one thinks of Hillary Clinton’s qualifications, there is little doubt her candidacy reinforced the idea of a political elite, one so closed off that it bordered on a revived nobility, with the crown passed around from family to family.
 
[…]
… the regular return of Bushes and Clintons to the national scene fed into [Trump's] argument that something was broken about American politics.
Barbara Bush understood that Americans wanted a sense of fairness and openness in their politics, that there was something unseemly if not undemocratic about the family’s dynastic control on the nation’s leadership, so much so that she publicly dissuaded her own son from running.
Grappling with the legacy of the elder Bushes is especially critical as the nation — and the world — seeks to better understand the forces that led to the Trump presidency. While it’s tempting to argue that Trump is a unique force in American politics, his election the result of an unpredictable and unreplicable set of forces, he rode to power on some very real historical and political problems, ones that Republican politicians, even politicians as loved as the Bushes, had a role in creating.”


Edited by - Simple Simon on 4/24/2018 9:01:35 AM

 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - Apr 24 2018 : 8:52AM
^Her comment may have been a small part of it as far as reinforcement of that "legacy" idea as you say...
But Jed was a bad campaigner independent of anything else. Hillary had her strengths....but too many weaknesses, the legacy thing being just one.
 
All-Star Member

Your other left
28335 Posts
3/02
Posted - Apr 24 2018 : 8:55AM
Fox News had a lot more to do with Trump's election than the Bush family did.

Senior Member

2937 Posts
2/15
Posted - Apr 24 2018 : 9:15AM
Just claryfying, those were quotes from the article, not me. I've changed the format. (And I think the title of the article is misleading click bait.)
I suppose the main point is that Trump was able to position himself as an outsider, who'll stand up for the real America. And that one of the main reasons he was able to do that was the Presidency/Leadership had taken on an appearance of a Bush/Clinton dynasty.
 
All-Star Member

Your other left
28335 Posts
3/02
Posted - Apr 24 2018 : 2:39PM
Trump didn't have to position himself as an outsider because he is an outsider. Granted, he wasn't an outsider to wealth or power, which we know go hand in hand, but he wasn't known as a political actor, so it didn't count to his supporters. In fact, being a 'self made' asshole was a distinct advantage.
Also, the notion of a 'real America' only exists in people's imaginations. That is to say, the USA is a lot of different things to a lot of different people, all being equally real (and unreal).
The salient point is that politicians either promote the ideals that can unite us or they promote the divisions that divide us, but benefit them.
As for the rest, I don't think Trump feels united with anybody. Here's a thought experiment -
Donald is making a speech on stage with Ivanka standing next to him. A guy in the front row pulls a gun out. Does Donald shove Ivanka behind him, or does he shove her in front of him?

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - Apr 24 2018 : 4:38PM
Ivanka might be the only one he doesn't shove in front of him.
I can see him using Melania as a shield, Don Jr., Jared, and even Barron.
I'm not sure he shoves Ivanka in front of him, but no way does he step in front of her and shield her. He probably just runs, hides, or hits the ground.
By the way, of course the thought experiment ends differently if you replace Trump with any number of people. I won't say who all, good or bad, but even some very Darth Vader-y people would take a bullet for their wives and children.

Senior Member

2937 Posts
2/15
Posted - Apr 25 2018 : 2:10AM
^^ I still think it's an interesting theory.
If you look at the timeline, Bush Snr was VP from 80-88, then President from 88-92. Then W. Clinton was President from 92-00, then W. Bush from 00-08. Then H. Clinton, all entitled, fully expected to be the Democrat candidate in 08, then hung around long after it was obvious it wasn't going to happen. Then was Secretary of State for all those years.
So when then, completely entitled, Clinton fully expected to be President in 16, how much of that timeline actually enabled Trump to present himself as an outsider, who, unlike the Bush's and Clinton's, wanted to be President for his country and it's people?
Regarding "the real America", you can't just dismiss that and say that doesn't exist. The media were presenting to a select group of the population, and I still don't think they realize this. And that needs to include many in the media's obsession with having the first (Democrat) female President.
(Though the comments in that article included this simple summation:
"Hillary Clinton is to blame. The Democrats could not have selected a worse candidate, notwithstanding her sense of entitlement.")

Senior Member

2937 Posts
2/15
Posted - Apr 28 2018 : 12:23AM
Interesting article on the book by Katy Tur.

"When Katy Tur was assigned to cover Donald Trump's presidential campaign in June 2015, she assumed it would be over in a matter of weeks. The property developer and reality TV star had announced his candidacy with a speech denouncing "morally corrupt losers… selling the country down the drain" and accusing Mexico of sending drug-dealers and rapists across the border. His bid for the nomination was almost universally regarded as a publicity stunt.
[...]
Tur first had an inkling Trump could win in July 2015, after he badmouthed Senator John McCain, a former US Air Force pilot who was tortured by the North Vietnamese. "He's not a war hero," Trump told supporters in Iowa. "He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured."
"I was talking to someone high up in the RNC [Republican National Committee] and he said 'it's over: you can't go after a POW. He served this country. No Republican electorate would ever stand for this'," Tur recalls. "And I went to a rally a couple of weeks later in Mobile, Alabama and there were 20,000 people. And I thought 'he's not going anywhere, and the voters don't really care'."
[...]
Unbelievable is a zippy first-hand account rather than a work of political analysis, Tur does attempt to explain Trump's appeal. "Look, I get it," she writes, paraphrasing the supporters she meets. "You can't tell a joke without worrying you'll lose your job. Your 20-something can't find work. Your town is boarded up. Patriotism gets called racism. Your food is full of chemicals. Your body is full of pills. You call tech support and reach someone in India. On top of it all, no one seems to care.""

Senior Member

2937 Posts
2/15
Posted - Apr 28 2018 : 3:17AM
^ 'Unbelievable: My Front-Row Seat to the Craziest Campaign in American History'
"a triumph that even [Trump's] closest advisors didn't see coming".
Edited by - Simple Simon on 4/28/2018 3:18:58 AM
 
All-Star Member

Literotica.com - grover10
28903 Posts
11/04
Posted - May 7 2018 : 8:56AM

Senior Member

2937 Posts
2/15
Posted - May 11 2018 : 5:41AM

Hillary Clinton is presently doing a speaking tour in my country.
An amusing comment from a local conservative commentator.
Question from me: Has Hillary Clinton actualy admitted she made any mistakes during thecampaign?
“Has any other loser of a presidential election made such a well-paid career of whingeing about it?: 
'Mrs Clinton told a packed … Exhibition Centre ... how she was 'pummelled' by her political opponents who left her with brutal trench scars.'
Tickets for this moan-fest cost between $195 and $495.
Alternatively, for just $27.31 you can orderShattered, in which two Clinton sympathisers describe how Clinton threw away the election by running a campaign so inept and clueless that she never even got around to figuring just why she was running in the first place.”
Some insightful reader comments
“She should have tried not calling most of Middle America "deplorable" and then not visiting any of those Middle States. She flew over them with disdain.”
“What on earth could she possibly talk about for an hour and a half, to keep an audience interested?
Is she going to talk about her hubby's philandering, and why she not only put up with it, but acted as her hubby's attack dog to denigrate and dehumanise his female victims?
Is she going to talk about why she conspired to assassinate Gaddafi, turning Libya into a hellhole, and initiating a tsunami of 'asylum seekers' who have flooded into Europe, making the lives of Europeans less safe, and draining their tax dollars?
Is she going to talk about why she paid for that fake Trump Dossier?
Is she going to talk about how she rigged the primaries to shaft Bernie Sanders?
Is she going to talk about why she felt the need to get debate questions in advance?
Is she going to talk about the 'pay for play' donations to the Clinton Foundation?
Of course not. She would rather talk about how the Russians, Comey, Assange, White Men, Misogynists, the Media, and anyone else she can think of, were responsible her her losing the unlose-able election against a supposedly inept clown who was meant to be unelectable.”
(/> 

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - May 11 2018 : 11:00AM
To answer your question, Clinton has said that her decision to label many Trump supporters “deplorables” was a “political gift” to President Trump.
But she didn't call most of Middle America "deplorable" as stated in your article. She said, “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables."
And nobody knows whether she flew over the middle states "with disdain." That's just someone trying to bugger up a sentence.
I cringed when she made the 'basket of deplorables' comment. But you could actually put half of Trump's supporters into a basket of deplorables. If you wanted to. You know, just to be grossly generalistic.

Senior Member

2937 Posts
2/15
Posted - May 11 2018 : 1:55PM
^ Hmm ... that doesn't really sound like an admission of error to me.
But I found these articles

"Hillary Clinton has found plenty of non-Hillary Clinton things to blame for her 2016 loss, including Russia, James B. Comey, debate moderators and misogyny. But her decision Wednesday to add the Democratic National Committee to that list is predictably proving pretty sensitive inside her own party.
A top former DNC aide tweeted overnight that Clinton's allegations were "f‑‑‑ing bulls‑‑‑" and even suggested that the Clinton campaign ignored its warnings about how competitive Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were. "

"
The former president saw early during the Democratic primary that his wife had a real problem connecting with these voters, many of whom overwhelmingly preferred Sanders' message on jobs and trade.
Bill Clinton reportedly warned the campaign that they needed to address the issue immediately, but "his advice fell on deaf ears," according to the New York Times.
Hillary Clinton's 36-year-old campaign manager, Robby Mook, dismissed the advice of the 70-year-old former president as the ravings of an aged athlete desperate to regain his former glory, and insisted instead that young, Latino and black voters were the key to winning 2016.
"Bill Clinton had railed ... for months" against the campaign's disinterest in the working-class, "wondering aloud at meetings why the campaign was not making more of an attempt to even ask that population for its votes," Politicoreported.
"Bill Clinton's viewpoint of fighting for the working-class white voters was often dismissed with a hand wave by senior members of the team"
"

Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - May 11 2018 : 6:29PM
I preferred Bernie, myself, and even changed my voter registration from Green Party to Democrat as soon as I moved back to the U.S., just a week or two before the primary, just so I could vote for Bernie.
But that was a crazy fucked-up election, with tons of drama, and lots and lots of truly fucked up things.
A lot of people are trying to figure out how the hell it could have gone so wrong. Frankly, one of the best and most simple explanations I've seen was in a letter to the editor of some magazine (not sure which). It said that racism was responsible for the rise of Trump, and misogyny for the fall of Hillary.
Note that the writer didn't say they were the only factors. Of course a con man is more flamboyant and entertaining than Hillary, who has a dull edge to her and some annoying history. I've lamented often that the elections in the era of mass media are no longer about substance and policies, but largely about how people appear on tv, which doesn't really predict good governance.
Kerry was dull and had a horse face. Gore was a stiff. People vote for who they'd want to have a beer with. So we're descending into electing Archie Bunker from the corner bar. More and more people are running for office who have no positive policies, nor good character; they just are a different kind of know-it-all. Guys who "know it all" without experience or education, who disparage experience and education. Guys with simple one-sentence answers to complex questions.
At any rate, I do believe that Trump rode a wave of stoking racial hostilities and misogyny. If he himself doesn't think that it was effective, why would he still be doing it?
Edited by - Pieps on 5/11/2018 6:31:49 PM

Senior Member

2937 Posts
2/15
Posted - May 11 2018 : 11:44PM
^ So you don't think it's as simple as, as per the articles, H. Clinton and the Dem's neglecting the marginal states?
Another theory. The constant mocking of Trump and his supporters by the mainstream media made people who'd decided to vote for Trump, less likely to admit this to pollsters*. This resulted in misleading polls. This then made (a) the Democrat party complacent, and (b)
Democrat voters less likely to actually vote.
The media were not doing their job; they were cheerleaders, not reporters. They were actually just trying to impress each other, and many were obsessed with having the first female president. If this theory is correct, it means not performing their role actually allowed Trump to become President.
*A local journalist had a relative in America who told them that people were lying to the pollsters and Trump was going to win. The journalist found odds on this of 100-1, and put on $100. (I try and do maths on this, ... but then I just can't. )


Senior Member

tGrump has no shortage of assholes.
6974 Posts
11/13
Posted - May 12 2018 : 12:17AM
It's nowhere near and simple as Clinton not visiting particular states.
I think that people who were too embarrassed to admit that they were voting for such a heinous person did indeed throw off the polls.
I don't know whether you could say that the media were cheerleaders. They have said that they bear some responsibility, though, for giving much, much more coverage to Trump's rallies than to any of his opponents, whether in the primaries or in the general election.
The media, though, is not one monolithic thing, and varies from one publication or channel to another. It's not accurate or fair to characterize it as if they were all one thing.
 
All-Star Member

Woman of the Decade
13912 Posts
1/08
Posted - May 12 2018 : 1:01AM
I don't. There's no one thing that happened that can explain Trump or the outcome of 2016. I, and others talk a little about deep roots in the American Never Stopped Fighting the Civil War Thread, but that's really just the surface.
OK, by "constant mocking" do you mean how racist and sexist attitudes were pointed out amongst Trump supporters?

Because I didn't see what you're talking about. My memory's not the greatest, but I vaguely recall Trump speeches being aired beginning to end on all the major cable networks (yes, on MSNBC too) and C-Span, to the tune of $2B in free media coverage. I also kinda sort remember reading about a billion think-pieces about the "plight of the White Working Class Left Behind by the Blah Blah Blah ad infinitum" and the endless gripes of self-pitying and victimization from people
Shit, just YESTERDAY the Super-Librul Washington Post ran
Now, I'll grant you that NOW post-election, there has been a backlash to Trump Voters and their incessant BMW (Bitching, Whining and Moaning). In fact, there's even a name for it:
As I show here -- among other posts -- let's not pretend that Trump voters were some sort of angelic, upstanding, open-minded, but misunderstood minority. None of those words apply to them.
We should understand something: There's a certain strain of Conservative that gets triggered no matter WHAT. Michelle Wolf made jokes about Sarah Sanders? That's an assault on me. There's a TV show called Black-ish? That's an assault on me. NFL Players kneeling? That's an assault on me. Women wearing burquas in Wal-Mart? That's an assault on me.
That's basically the Conservative Ethos these days. If it doesn't apply directly to me, It's An Assault On Me. Trump bottled up that victimization and sold it back to the crowds at a 40% markup.

Page 80 of 82 First < 55 68 70 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 > Last



Jump To:

Online porn video at mobile phone