The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Jeff Lebowski]

Okay tough guy. Put your money where your mouth is. So far, AJ is the same only Obama defender who has offered substantive reasons. Everyone else just disagrees without reasons or calls names. Win me over and I'll bring you a brisket when I come down. I'll also invite myself to dinner.

Tough guy?

The basis of discussion here is not whether or not Obama is a good or great president. You said he was a disaster. I think he has been a decent president; I would even go with mediocre. But disaster? Come on. If you have to make your argument based on failed attempts at gun control, the ISIS bogey man, or by arguing that the economic recovery wasn't good enough, then I think your case for "disaster" is a stretch.

But I have no desire to win anyone over, so I will happily pay for the brisket.

[YOhio]

Do people on this august site still think that Obama is going to ruin the economy, run up huge bills, increase taxes 10fold, and let terrorists roam free, all while taking away our gun rights? I think Obama has been pretty good, all things considered, and I don't see Hillary changing the script all that much.

In my opinion, Obama's primary failure as a president has been his absolute inability to establish a working relationship with Congress. I recognize that Congress shares a lot of the blame on that front, but in my opinion this is a blown opportunity by Obama to demonstrate strong leadership. And what he dealt with over the past six years isn't unique. Clinton had a House that completely flipped his second year in office (like Obama, but even more dramatic) and one that impeached him, yet he still managed to pass NAFTA, a balanced budget, welfare reform and three strikes you're out. Reagan spent his entire presidency with an opposite party holding congressional power and he was able to operate. Bush lost the Senate three months into his term and it stayed that way, yet he was still able to pass NCLB and medicare modernization act.

While an argument could be made that Obama is a better president than Bush, the latter was simply better at working with Congress in a substantive and effective manner. Obama's first inclination in a Congressional negotiation has always been to point the finger, lay blame and poison the discussion. Even if deserved, it's not leadership.

[cowboy]

Tough guy?

The basis of discussion here is not whether or not Obama is a good or great president. You said he was a disaster. I think he has been a decent president; I would even go with mediocre. But disaster? Come on. If you have to make your argument based on failed attempts at gun control, the ISIS bogey man, or by arguing that the economic recovery wasn't good enough, then I think your case for "disaster" is a stretch.

But I have no desire to win anyone over, so I will happily pay for the brisket.

Fair enough. I disagree. Disaster designation is primarily based on his economic mismanagement and ISIS. The rest just makes him a very bad president. Time will tell on the economic argument, and I think there is plenty of evidence to argue ISIS is more than a Boogeyman. I'll call in advance when I have as date available for dinner.

I guess I just assumed you were tough because farm girls don't marry siss....er, un-tough guys. My bad.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[beefytee]

In my opinion, Obama's primary failure as a president has been his absolute inability to establish a working relationship with Congress. I recognize that Congress shares a lot of the blame on that front, but in my opinion this is a blown opportunity by Obama to demonstrate strong leadership. And what he dealt with over the past six years isn't unique. Clinton had a House that completely flipped his second year in office (like Obama, but even more dramatic) and one that impeached him, yet he still managed to pass NAFTA, a balanced budget, welfare reform and three strikes you're out. Reagan spent his entire presidency with an opposite party holding congressional power and he was able to operate. Bush lost the Senate three months into his term and it stayed that way, yet he was still able to pass NCLB and medicare modernization act.

While an argument could be made that Obama is a better president than Bush, the latter was simply better at working with Congress in a substantive and effective manner. Obama's first inclination in a Congressional negotiation has always been to point the finger, lay blame and poison the discussion. Even if deserved, it's not leadership.

Nailed it.

Just contrasting how Bill Clinton handled the debt limit showdowns compared to Obama, it is clear that Obama was lacking.

[YOhio]

One of the most despicable developments we've seen this cycle, and there have been so many, is the right wing embrace of ASSange. So they talk about Hillary's emails as a threat to NatSec and I might agree, but even the worst case would number the classified emails at around a thousand. Yet they're cool with ASSange releasing terabytes of classified intel over the years because he can embarrass Hillary with illegally hacked emails? This is atrocious. Remember when some kid from Tennessee broke into Palin's hotmail and was roundly criticized by both sides? Or when Hatch fired a senior staff member for accessing docs that Democrat Senate judiciary staff accidentally put on a shared drive? The soul of our politics is so rotten. There are few statesmen to be found anymore.

[frank ryan]

One of the most despicable developments we've seen this cycle, and there have been so many, is the right wing embrace of ASSange. So they talk about Hillary's emails as a threat to NatSec and I might agree, but even the worst case would number the classified emails at around a thousand. Yet they're cool with ASSange releasing terabytes of classified intel over the years because he can embarrass Hillary with illegally hacked emails? This is atrocious. Remember when some kid from Tennessee broke into Palin's hotmail and was roundly criticized by both sides? Or when Hatch fired a senior staff member for accessing docs that Democrat Senate judiciary staff accidentally put on a shared drive? The soul of our politics is so rotten. There are few statesmen to be found anymore.

I don't know how (including several on here) don't see this as a frightening development. I totally buy the intelligence community's assertion that Russia and Assange are trying to swing the election. Shame on the Vichy Republicans who are silent on this.

[old_gregg]

One of the most despicable developments we've seen this cycle, and there have been so many, is the right wing embrace of ASSange. So they talk about Hillary's emails as a threat to NatSec and I might agree, but even the worst case would number the classified emails at around a thousand. Yet they're cool with ASSange releasing terabytes of classified intel over the years because he can embarrass Hillary with illegally hacked emails? This is atrocious. Remember when some kid from Tennessee broke into Palin's hotmail and was roundly criticized by both sides? Or when Hatch fired a senior staff member for accessing docs that Democrat Senate judiciary staff accidentally put on a shared drive? The soul of our politics is so rotten. There are few statesmen to be found anymore.

i can't comprehend this

[Jeff Lebowski]

Trigger warning for SU: Positive stuff about Utah/Mormons

Utah is the political conscience of the nation

...

The best explanation for the rise of this independent candidate is that Mormons, who tend to have deeply conservative values, are genuinely repulsed by Donald Trump. And not just by the crude comments and allegations of sexual assault that recently came to light, but also by Trump’s anti-Muslim sentiment, which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints implicitly condemned 10 months ago.


Mormons’ moral consistency has been striking when compared with other religious Republicans. Values evangelicals like the Family Research Council have continued to support Trump despite the mounting evidence that he doesn’t share their ethical or religious values. Some have tried suggesting he’s had a Christian conversion — but there’s no indication that he’s undergone a spiritual transformation from the man he has been for the last three or four decades.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/20...of-the-nation/

[Uncle Ted]

In my opinion, Obama's primary failure as a president has been his absolute inability to establish a working relationship with Congress. I recognize that Congress shares a lot of the blame on that front, but in my opinion this is a blown opportunity by Obama to demonstrate strong leadership. And what he dealt with over the past six years isn't unique. Clinton had a House that completely flipped his second year in office (like Obama, but even more dramatic) and one that impeached him, yet he still managed to pass NAFTA, a balanced budget, welfare reform and three strikes you're out. Reagan spent his entire presidency with an opposite party holding congressional power and he was able to operate. Bush lost the Senate three months into his term and it stayed that way, yet he was still able to pass NCLB and medicare modernization act.

While an argument could be made that Obama is a better president than Bush, the latter was simply better at working with Congress in a substantive and effective manner. Obama's first inclination in a Congressional negotiation has always been to point the finger, lay blame and poison the discussion. Even if deserved, it's not leadership.

If anything, Obama has made the political divide a lot worse...





http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/...y/#interactive

[Uncle Ted]

One of the most despicable developments we've seen this cycle, and there have been so many, is the right wing embrace of ASSange. So they talk about Hillary's emails as a threat to NatSec and I might agree, but even the worst case would number the classified emails at around a thousand. Yet they're cool with ASSange releasing terabytes of classified intel over the years because he can embarrass Hillary with illegally hacked emails? This is atrocious. Remember when some kid from Tennessee broke into Palin's hotmail and was roundly criticized by both sides? Or when Hatch fired a senior staff member for accessing docs that Democrat Senate judiciary staff accidentally put on a shared drive? The soul of our politics is so rotten. There are few statesmen to be found anymore.

Or when Rubio said he won't talk about clinton's wikileaks emails?... I remember that like it was yesterday.

If I recall correctly that kid from Tennessee that broke into Palin's email account was the son of a democrat lawmaker.

[Uncle Ted]

I don't know how (including several on here) don't see this as a frightening development. I totally buy the intelligence community's assertion that Russia and Assange are trying to swing the election. Shame on the Vichy Republicans who are silent on this.

First, Assange/Wikileaks has released nothing that is going to throw this election. We have learned that Hillary can't be trusted but already knew that.

Second, the truly frightening thing is the total lack of cyber security used by the democrats (e.g., clinton using an unsecured server to store and read classified material. Good hell!). Hopefully, the democrats have learned their lesson and do more to secure their email or just stop using.

Hackers would have most likely hacked Trump's email a long time ago but he doesn't use email or even carry a damn cell phone. He may not even know how to use a computer. Apparently he tweets using pen and paper (and has one of his aids post it for him). Most likely the only way to hack Trump is to going diving in his dumpster.

[Uncle Ted]

No, Hillary, 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies Did Not Say Russia Hacked Dem E-mails


Hillary Clinton in last night’s presidential debate tried to avoid talking about the substance of the damaging WikiLeaks disclosures of DNC and Clinton campaign officials by claiming 17 U.S. intelligence agencies determined that Russia was responsible for this. After Clinton made this claim, she scolded Trump for challenging U.S. intelligence professionals who have taken an oath to help defend this country. What Clinton said was false and misleading. First of all, only two intelligence entities – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies. And what they said was ambiguous about Russian involvement.

An unclassified October 7, 2016 joint DNI-DHS statement on this issue said the hacks . . .

are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

Saying we think the hacks “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” is far short of saying we have evidence that Russia has been responsible for the hacks. Maybe high-level officials would have authorized them if Russian hackers were responsible, but the DNI and DHS statement did NOT say there was evidence Russia was responsible.

[...]

Maybe the Russians are behind the WikiLeak hacks of Democrat e-mails, possibly to influence the 2016 presidential election. I’m not convinced of this. I’m more concerned that these constant leaks of Democratic e-mails demonstrate that Democratic officials appear to have no understanding of the need for Internet security. This makes me wonder if John Podesta’s e-mail password is “password.” These are the people Clinton will be giving senior jobs with high-level security clearances. That is the real security scandal that no one is talking about.

— Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy. He worked in national-security positions for 25 years with the CIA, the State Department, and the House Intelligence Committee.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...-hacked-russia

[myboynoah]

Clinton adding staff in Utah as her campaign eyes expansion into red states

Among the campaign surrogates coming to the state are former senator Larry Pressler of South Dakota — a Republican who recently converted to Mormonism. Feminist icon Gloria Steinem also held a rally for Clinton on Friday in Salt Lake City.

lol, yeah drive all the anti-Dumpsters right to Evan.

Go Mormons!!!

[YOhio]

Clinton adding staff in Utah as her campaign eyes expansion into red states



lol, yeah drive all the anti-Dumpsters right to Evan.

Go Mormons!!!

That made me laugh, too. Would love to see the thought process there.

To make lifelong republicans in a very religious state feel comfortable about voting for a very blue democrat, someone in her camp thought the closer should be super feminist abortion-rights champion Gloria Steinem. For good measure they're gonna put in former South Dakota Republican senator Larry Pressler. Lol. Presumably because he converted to Mormonism a year ago and they know how much we hate to offend converts.

[SeattleUte]

If anything, Obama has made the political divide a lot worse...

None of this is hard to comprehend--Trump, the right embracing Assange, the nation more divided over the past eight years. What's happened is that elements of the right--benighted elements the Republican Party has actively solicited--are infuriated at the social progress that's occurred. Their ilk would have been angry at the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Brown v. Board, etc., and they certainly don't celebrate those events now. But LGBTQ civil rights have pushed them over the edge.

I think the unprecedented depth of negative emotion and invective directed at Hillary (who, I maintain, is demonastrably about the same as about all the presidents we've had in our lifetime, substantively as well as truthfulness; inherently, the job does not attract straight shooters) is partly about her gender, partly about her dynastic facet, but mostly about these Americans who regard her and her party as entirely to blame for and even emblematic of the social progress--particularly civil rights for women and LGBTQ. Trump wouldn't be where he is if he hadn't vilified Mexicans, degraded women, and been instrumental in the his companies' active racial prejudice and the unjust charging and incarceration of young black men. This is a one issue election, and truly a referendum on American character.

So, I don't know why Trump's enemies or opponents are so delicate about this. But I'm going to say it. If you support Trump, you are a presumed bigot, racist and sexist. The burden of proof should be on you to convince the world otherwise, if you care.