US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Onkel Neal]

Same here. I don't think he is an idiot, though. He's a lot smarter than I gave him credit for, he did manage to outmaneuver the experienced Republican field and beat Madam Hillary at her own game. He is uncouth, crass, and quite a huckster.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Perhaps the Democrats have learnt that nominating Clinton was a mistake.

I wonder how many people didn’t vote for Trump, but instead against Clinton?

2016 was truly a race to the bottom of the barrel.

I believe that if the Democrats had put almost anyone other than Hillary up, they would have won.

The Republicans could have put almost anyone other than Trump and still beaten Hillary.

Hillary's legacy is being probably the only candidate that could lose against a buffoon like Trump

Putting Hillary up will go down as a political mistake equal to the GOP putting up Palin.

There are times when one as to ask "what were they thinking?"

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

... He is uncouth, crass, and quite a huckster.

In otherwords the perfect politician.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

In otherwords the perfect politician.

Not really. The other hucksters at least know how to use decorum when it's required of the office.

[Rockstar]

You gotta admit though his lack of political decorum didn't get in the way of him becoming president. I'd even go so far as to say it helped him get elected.
Call me crazy but from what I have been reading in the news the last several months I predict the economy will tank and become the headline just in time for the 2020 presidential election.

[Buddahaid]

I don't disagree with that. I'm just disappointed that he just doesn't get it, or if he does, he doesn't care. Sure, speak plainly, but why crudely? I have never had any respect for the man, and I see any reason to change my opinion while he's had a wonderful opportunity to be great, and has/will blown it by being a class A-1 jerk.

[Catfish]

Rockstar wrote:

You gotta admit though his lack of political decorum didn't get in the way of him becoming president. I'd even go so far as to say it helped him get elected.

100 percent agree. Isn't that frightening?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Catfish

100 percent agree. Isn't that frightening?

For some people.

Two possible predictions for the future.

#1. A 'Trump' from the left. The play book has been written and published. Politicians will resort to any means to get elected. It's in their genes.

#2. If a recurrence of conditions like 2016 happen again... another Trump from the right.

I will be available to disavow any prediction should they turn out to be wrong.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

Not really. The other hucksters at least know how to use decorum when it's required of the office.

That's exactly right. At least the other politicians respected the office enough to act properly. I give Obama that. And Bush. I have nothing against a President who steps outside the usual lanes when the occasion warrants it, but Trump lives outside the lane. Some of his blathering is more appropriate for budget TV ads

[vienna]

[QUOTE=u crank;2578381]

Speaking of California, its primary system meant that two Democrats faced off on Election Day, so presumably de León's 2.8-plus-million votes are in the Democratic column, along with California winner Dianne Feinstein's more than 3.3 million votes.

California has what is called an "Open Primary" or "Voter-Nominated" system for almost all but local (county/city) offices:


Primary Elections in California --

https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pri...ns-california/

What is a voter-nominated office?

The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act, which took effect January 1, 2011, created "voter-nominated" offices. The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act does not apply to candidates running for U.S. President, county central committees, or local offices.

Most of the offices that were previously known as "partisan" are now known as "voter-nominated" offices. Voter-nominated offices are state constitutional offices, state legislative offices, and U.S. congressional offices. The only "partisan offices" now are the offices of U.S. President and county central committee.


How are primary elections conducted in California?

All candidates for voter-nominated offices are listed on one ballot and only the top two vote-getters in the primary election – regardless of party preference - move on to the general election. Write-in candidates for voter-nominated offices can only run in the primary election. A write-in candidate will only move on to the general election if the candidate is one of the top two vote-getters in the primary election.

Prior to the Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act, the top vote-getter from each qualified political party, as well as any write-in candidate who received a certain percentage of votes, moved on to the general election.

The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act does not apply to candidates running for U.S. President, county central committee, or local office.

(Italics mine)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_p...n_Alternatives

California and Primary Election Alternatives

A "modified closed primary" was in effect in California from 2001 to 2011. Each political party could decide whether or not they wish to allow unaffiliated voters to vote in their party's primary. This appeared to avoid the constitutional concerns of both the open and the closed primary. In the 2004 and 2006 primary elections, the Republican, Democratic, and American Independent parties all opted to allow unaffiliated voters to request their party's ballot. However, since the 2008 presidential primary election, only the Democratic and American Independent parties took this option, while the Republican party did not.

In 2011, the state adopted a "modified open primary". Individual citizens may vote for any candidate, and the top two candidates regardless of party will advance to the general election. The Presidential election is exempt from this voting method as it is a contest for delegates rather than a direct election for an office.

A potential side effect of the open primary is that parties that run more candidates may find themselves at a disadvantage, since their partisan supporters' votes will be split more ways in the primary and thus those candidates may have a harder time reaching the top-two ranking when competing with parties that run fewer candidates.

As noted above, the former Primary system tended to work against voter from 'third parties' or Independents (IND) like myself. In prior primaries, IND voters were given ballots listing only candidates from 'third parties' or the occasional independent, "lone wolf' candidates; now the primary is open to all voters of any or n affiliation. It seems to work pretty well (although the two major parties still have hardliners who grouse about letting anyone other than their own participate), and, in the last primary, an Independent candidate actually won a space on the November 2016 General Election ballot for the position of State Insurance Commissioner, proving, if you run a worthy candidate, voters will support them, regardless of affiliation. The candidate in question is Steve Poizner, who was once Insurance Commissioner, but gave up his office in an unsuccessful run for Governor. He ran as a GOP candidate back when he first won the Commissioner's office, but this last time, he ran as an Independent; he didn't want to have deal with the 'Trump-taint', as he appears to not be a fan of Trump. In the primary of 2016, he actually got the highest vote percentage, beating out a DEM candidate, but lost in the General Election to the DEM candidate; it's a shame really, since his single term as CA Insurance Commissioner was one of the most productive and effective in CA history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_...e_Commissioner

The California Insurance Commissioner was created in 1988 via the voter approval of Proposition 103. Poizner took office in January 8, 2007 and served until January 3, 2011. As Insurance Commissioner, Poizner received praise for his handling of the San Diego wildfires in 2007, for taking on health insurance companies' illegal rescission practices and rate increases, and for decreasing spending in his state government department's discretionary operating budget by 13%. At the end of his term, Poizner was praised for his efforts to streamline and modernize the CDI through spending cuts and conducting a top-down review of the department. Poizner oversaw nearly 2,800 fraud-related arrests, the most in CDI history, in a 3-year span and conducted the first ever terror finance probe by a US Insurance Commissioner, which resulted in millions of dollars diverted from Iran.

I voted for him as an IND candidate and I would have voted for him if he were a GOP candidate...



...and, as far as the total vote tallies go, let's be honest: if the 2018 General Election vote totals were reversed and the GOP wound up with the majority of the vote, the GOP would be loudly hailing it as an affirmation of Trump , and as a "mandate from America' for GOP policies and the DEM commentators would be posting their own versions of the two links u crank posted. So lets not just go by the "vox populi", let's go by the fact 28 GOP incumbent House members lost their seats to DEM candidates and no DEM incumbents lost their seats; or how about the GOP losing seven Governor's office nation wide; or how about it appears the GOP will pretty much have stagnated when it comes to Senate gains? Or maybe how in states and areas where Trump won in 2016 by double digits, GOP candidates pretty much either squeaked by or lost? Somehow, I haven't head many, if any, reports of significant gains by the GOP in the 2018 General Election...

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

That's exactly right. At least the other politicians respected the office enough to act properly. I give Obama that. And Bush. I have nothing against a President who steps outside the usual lanes when the occasion warrants it, but Trump lives outside the lane. Some of his blathering is more appropriate for budget TV ads

Decorum by a President is the face the US presents to the world, but what we have now is what some have referred to as a 'drunken uncle at a family party'; I tend to think of Trump as as a sort of "Cliff Clavin" character, like from Cheers (and I apologize to Cliff for the highly unflattering comparison), the loudmouthed guy at the end of the bar, forcefully declaiming fuzzy 'facts' or, if facts fail, just making up lies in order to seem knowledgeable. Trump is a huckster, like all con men and Trump has been a con man for a very long time, but con men don't do well in the light of day. When Trump won election, I predicted his past and present cons would come back to haunt him and, with the looming Mueller investigation results about to come, and with the rising notice of Trump's blatant and rampant dishonesty even more evident, the prediction is about to come true; Trump, prior to office,could rely on the fact his dishonest activities would ot rise to the level of extended and detailed scrutiny, but he now faces the fact everything, anything a holder of a prominent office does or did is fair game for the news media and for the investigative arms of the various justice branches; he can no longer secretly make a deal to keep his wrongs from the public eye...


In case any of you might be looking for an Xmas 'stocking stuffer' for the Trump-lover you might know (or yourself), this little item has been out for about a year now:











<O>

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Rockstar wrote:


100 percent agree. Isn't that frightening?

meh, I've been a sailor all of my life so I've heard and said worse. Just not everyday.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

California has what is called an "Open Primary" or "Voter-Nominated" system for almost all but local (county/city) offices:

Well thanks for the civics lesson on California's 'jungle primary'. I didn't need it.

The point of this quote..

Speaking of California, its primary system meant that two Democrats faced off on Election Day, so presumably de León's 2.8-plus-million votes are in the Democratic column, along with California winner Dianne Feinstein's more than 3.3 million votes.

..is pretty obvious. In the 'popular' vote count for the Senate nation wide, 6.1 million Democrat votes were counted from the state of California. Zero Republican votes were counted. That is almost 2 million more that what Clinton beat Trump by in 2016 in that state. Are we to suggest that no Republicans would have voted for their candidate if there was one on the ticket. Because of this the national popular vote count is kinda meaningless.

...and, as far as the total vote tallies go, let's be honest: if the 2018 General Election vote totals were reversed and the GOP wound up with the majority of the vote, the GOP would be loudly hailing it as an affirmation of Trump , and as a "mandate from America' for GOP policies..

Doesn't make it any more valid.

..and the DEM commentators would be posting their own versions of the two links u crank posted.

Last time I checked Z. Byron Wolf and Chris Cillizza are DEM commentators.

As for Trumpy Bear..this YouTube comment is priceless.

I tried to buy this and was shocked when it showed up at my house. They took the money and the bear actually showed up. He's been riding in my back seat for 3 months and I still can't believe this is all real. I went to a psychologist because I was concerned that I could see Trumpy Bear and to my horror, she could see him too. We're both now seeing separate counselors as we try to grapple with this Ursus phenomenon. I submitted myself to a psychiatric clinic to see if they could talk me out of Trumpy's existence but they were dumbfounded and turned us away. Trumpy Bear is real.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

The point of this quote..

..is pretty obvious. In the 'popular' vote count for the Senate nation wide, 6.1 million Democrat votes were counted from the state of California. Zero Republican votes were counted. That is almost 2 million more that what Clinton beat Trump by in 2016 in that state. Are we to suggest that no Republicans would have voted for their candidate if there was one on the ticket. Because of this the national popular vote count is kinda meaningless.

Hmm, when the Primary for US Senate was tabulated, the highest ranking GOP candidate was James P. Bradley in 3rd place with 8.3% of the total vote; I guess if you don't run a candidate the voters are actually willing to vote for, that's what happens... Feinstein (DEM) got 44.2% of the total vote in the open, non partisan primary. There were 35 candidates, from all parties, including independents, who ran for the office. The voters, of all parties got to choose and they did. As in much of the races run in CA, the GOP just ran candidates either out of step with the majority of the voters or just unknown quantities to the voters...

There were over 6,168,767 ballots cast in the CA US Senate race, all going to the two DEM candidates; since there are 8,438,268 DEM and 4,769,299 GOP registered voters in CA (net total 13,207,567), the chances of any of the GOP Primary candidates, had they got on the ballot, actually making a significant dent on the final vote tally, as regards the DEM haul, was unlikely; the Governor's race, which did have both a DEM and GOP candidate, resulted in the DEM winning 60% to 40%, with 4,158,682 votes of those cast going to the DEM candidate. There were a total of 7,141,987 votes cast in the General Election, roughly about 970,000 votes less than the total ballots statewide. I'm willing to bet not every single GOP voter abstained from voting for one of the DEM candidates, and there were probably a lot of IND and Third Party voters who cast vote in the Senate race, so technically, the vote total is not just DEM voters. Are you seriously suggesting only DEM voters voted in the race and no other party or IND voters took part? Seems unlikely...

...and it has been stated before by posters in this forum, when defending the "quality" of Trump's win in 2016, that 'a win is a win', no matter how ugly or convoluted, so just suck it up and deal with the fact that, even without CA's vote included, the GOP and Trump got their asses handed to them, losing some 40 House seats, making no gains in the Senate, losing seven governorships, and watching a slew of states and counties where Trump won by double digits either losing the GOP hold or having the GOP candidates barely squeaking by; and, the DEMs got more votes cast for their candidates, nationwide, than the GOP. Trump has no power over and his influence with the majority of voting Americans has been, is, and continues to be minimal to none and, once the hearing and indictments start, he will be less a party leader than a very heavy albatross to the GOP. If you want to see the possible future of the GOP, look up the results in Orange County, CA, a place once called Regan country: in 2016, the very heavily GOP county, for the first time in 80 years, did not elect a GOP candidate for President, and, in 2018's General election, turned every single House seat over the DEM column, the first time in 80 years not a single House district in the County will be represented by a GOP rep.; add to this the fact Orange County is also the county that contributes the most funds of any county in the US to GOP coffers, and the future does not bode well for the GOP...









<O>

[u crank]

^

I'll not dispute any of those facts except...

Originally Posted by vienna

making no gains in the Senate

Hmm.. GOP are up two Senate seats overall and will likely make it three on Tuesday. If Cindy Hyde-Smith can keep her foot out of her mouth she should win in the special election in deep red Mississippi. Final result GOP +3.

[Skybird]

The behaviour Trump shows in all regards, is the only one he knows, which shows how limited he is. He is successful in being popular, because it is right this bulling behaviour for which the crowd likes him.

He is not master of his ways, nor of himself. He is haunted by the way he behaves, he is ridden by it, pushed, chased. Its the only thing that keeps him in office. The foundation of his populism.

All this makes three things very unlikely:

First, that he will ever show any other behaviour.

Second, that he can keep himself in power once this behaviour is no longer being asked for, or tolerated. Because he does not know any other.

Third, that any of the career parasites who rose just becasue of him, will speak out against his rudeness and bulliness and narration of his fake reality.

He will get reelected, most likely. And leader and people deserve each other like rarely before.

Thus, zero compassion from me.