US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I can certainly agree with that.

Putting Hillary will rank up (down?) there with the decision to run Palin as VP. Makes you wonder "what were they thinking???

Well although they certainly had the same effect (media spin has a lot to do with it) I don't believe we can really put them in the same category of screw up. After all we're talking about a country with great experience in electing strong Presidents with bad veep choices. Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle, Andrew Johnson, John Calhoun, Arron Burr to name a few. Although it scares the crap out of me it doesn't seem to bother folks that it puts one of those people a heart beat away from the oval office.

I think Hillary could have gotten someone with George Washingtons stature to run as her veep and people would still have voted against her. Whereas the other way around a modern day GW could definitely win even with Hillary as his veep. Heck he could probably win with one of those clowns mentioned above knowing what we know about them!

[Platapus]

As I have posted previously, I believe that Hillary's legacy is being probably the only candidate who could lose against a buffoon like Trump.

I feel that if the Republicans would have run pretty much anyone else, Hillary would still have lost but at the same time, if the Democrats had run anyone besides Hillary, Trump would have lost.

She was a poor choice no matter how the DNC felt she "deserved" it.

She was an ineffective Senator and a mediocre SecState. Her resume is filled with effort but little results. A shaker and mover she aint.

[August]

Watching the Democrats try to catch Trump is like watching Wile E. Coyote trying to catch the Road Runner.

[Skybird]

No comment.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by August

Very true but in this case a sizable part of Trumps victory was that it was against Clinton, a person loathed by millions for decades.

...

Yeah, she was so reviled she got nearly 2.9 million votes more than Trump, a fact that still sticks in the Yellow Blunder's craw. Trump's minions and Trumpettes have been desperately trying to foist off the fiction that Trump was the popular choice and/or that Trump has a mandate from the American people; neither, like anything Trump says, is the truth. He got no majority of the popular vote, so any claim of a mandate is absolutely false; he got fewer votes than Clinton, so the evidence is that, given a choice, the voters chose Clinton; Trump got 46.1% of the popular vote (Clinton: 48.2%) meaning a clear majority of Americans voting, 53.9% did not see enough value to Trump's campaign/issues to actually vote for him and either voted for Clinton or other candidates. Trump hasn't even been able to get his approval rating above 50%: he started office at 45.5% and currently is at 41.8%; these are numbers one sees when a President is in their second term and is 'lame ducking' out their term:

Trump Approval Ratings --

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...roval-ratings/

Even Nixon had a 49.8% approval rating when he resigned in disgrace than Trump has now at 41.8%...


Frankly, I can't really see why the minions and Trumpettes are wasting their time on continually dredging up the Clintons, or Obama, for that matter; Hillary has been marginalized by her own party to the point she genuinely has no influence on the party's direction; Obama still has some small pull, mainly for fundraising, but even he isn't as influential as one might expect from a former President; the party is moving on and they are taking Hillary and Obama with them...

Perhaps the obsession of the minions and Trumpettes with Clinton and Obama is due to the fact they realize that, without some sort of diversion and/or deflection, they would have to actually defend and explain the action, and inactions of Trump; the Trump CV as president so far is really even a minor bell-ringer, particularly when compared to other previous administrations. Added to the woes of the minions and Trumpettes are the woes and misdeeds of Trump's past prior to and up to taking office that are coming back to bite him in the ass (he does have a sizable target ); and, as time goes on, more and more is surfacing to make Trump's legacy one less of serious achievement than one of serious mis management...

Its kind of hard to defend a pile of crap to people who are expecting much better...


..and, regarding Palin, I am one of those who was prepared to cast my vote for McCain against Obama; I am also one of a great, great many who shifted their vote when that albatross Palin was draped arund the neck of of an otherwise great and honorable man; I am also one of many who feel the GOP should be profoundly ashamed for what they did to McCain...








<O>

[vienna]

I'm sure a wall would have prevented this:


CBP agent gave drug trafficking organization keys to fences along the southern border, DOJ says --

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cbp-...ry?id=61602268

For 10 years while still an agent, Robert Hall "facilitated the trafficking of illegal drugs, including marijuana, into the United States from Mexico on behalf of a drug trafficking organization," the Department of Justice said.

...

According to the Justice Department, Hall in total accepted $50,000 in cash from a drug trafficking organization "in exchange for using his position as a BPA to enable the DTO’s drug shipments to cross the border into Texas without law enforcement detection," the DOJ said.

...

Daniel Hernandez, who is set to be sentenced in May, is a former CBP nurse who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to bribe a public official in February.

In one instance, Hernandez was paid $500 for a map containing sensor locations and a copy of a key that opened CBP locks, according to court documents.

In total, Hernandez accepted $5,000 in bribes from the drug trafficking organization, authorities said.

...

Walls don't stop drugs and terrorism from getting in; having honorable and trustworthy people stop drugs and terrorism from getting in...










<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

..and, regarding Palin, I am one of those who was prepared to cast my vote for McCain against Obama; I am also one of a great, great many who shifted their vote when that albatross Palin was draped arund the neck of of an otherwise great and honorable man; I am also one of many who feel the GOP should be profoundly ashamed for what they did to McCain...

Are you suggesting that McCain did not have a say in picking his running mate?

[JU_88]

Oh come on Vienna, she's a 90's relic, with no message, a lousy track record, just another bland career politician.
Sure she won the popular vote, but she still lost, Despite campaign worth more than some countries. and against Mr orange of all people.
And god, she still harps on (insinuates) about how she lost to 'sexism', Jesus she must be a narcissist or a liar, because she cant be that clueless.

I'm not even American so I don't have a dog in the race, but if you're a Dem, you better pray she doesn't run again in 2020, because unless the sky falls in between now then, the out come will be the same as 2016.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by u crank

Are you suggesting that McCain did not have a say in picking his running mate?

I am sure he had a say but I am also sure that the RNC had a say.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I am sure he had a say but I am also sure that the RNC had a say.

I'm sure that both parties 'suggest' running mates for presidential candidates. McCain is on record saying he regrets picking Palin so I guess that is taking responsibility. His hind sight preferred pick was Sen. Joseph Lieberman. That pick would have been problematic as well as Lieberman was a former Democrat who was pro choice. That would have been the Evangelical vote out the window.

[Platapus]

1832 until 1940, the VP was picked by the delegates at the convention. It should be remembered that prior to the 1960's, the VP had little to do in the Executive Branch and spent most of their time in the Legislative Branch.

In 1940, FDR threatened to refuse the nomination if the delegates did not nominate Wallace. In 1944, partially to poor health, FDR allowed the delegates to choose the VP -- Truman.

Since 1948, the presidential candidate gets to choose, but I am sure there is behind the scenes influence from the party. Like most things in politics, it is probably a compromise. The presidential candidate wants to select a VP candidate that the party supports. It serves no purpose to buck one's own party too much. Conversely, there is no point to force a presidential candidate to have a running mate he or she dislikes.... Although the relationship between president and VP is not always friendly.

In 1984, Walter Mondale had two significant "firsts"

He was the first candidate from a major party to nominate a woman as VP and he was the first candidate to announce his running make prior to the convention. Prior to that, the announcement of the VP candidate was made near the middle of the convention.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I feel that if the Republicans would have run pretty much anyone else, Hillary would still have lost

I seriously doubt it.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by em2nought

I seriously doubt it.

If you look at the electoral map, Hillary got a few high value states and the coastal states, but lost a lot of the smaller states. Those added up. She did not appeal to the people in the majority of the states.



To win, you have to get the smaller population states too.

[August]

Originally Posted by u crank

That would have been the Evangelical vote out the window.

I wonder how accurate that would have been if he had picked Lieberman. Some Evangelicals might have stayed home but i'd bet a great majority would do their civic duty anyways.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

To win, you have to get the smaller population states too.

That's because it's the United STATES of America. I think it's good that our national office elections reflect that.