What if the Electors Change their Vote on Monday? Could Hillary Reach 270?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by RAM PhD, Dec 17, 2016.

Loading...
  1. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Come to think of it, if "mainstream media" creates "scripted fake news" presumably favourable to Clintons, how come they didn't push a puff piece about all the good work Clinton Foundation did? You know they would have no problem finding material. Instead, news coverage alternated between "Clinton scandals" and showing an empty podium where "Trump is about to speak".

    I'll tell you why. Because the ad-driven media is biased in a way that maximizes ratings, and this cycle it was to Trump's enormous benefit. Complaints about "the lying media" is working the ref technique that Trump did not invent but perfected into an art form.
     
  2. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Singularly unqualified for office hits the nail on the head. Yes, in two weeks, we will have a new Tweeter in Chief. I mean, this guy listens to Julian Assange over our US intelligence community, then tweets about it!

    Then, there is this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/politics/trumps-off-the-cuff-remarks-to-world-leaders-leave-diplomats-aghast.html

    Then, to make matters worst, he feels he doesn't need to attend daily briefings because "he is smart". I'm sorry, if he didn't want to attend daily briefings like all the other presidents have, he shouldn't have signed up for the job.

    The guy hasn't even started yet, and he has been playing with fire. Lord knows what potential problems his tweeting habit will cause.
     
  3. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    These are truly very exciting times that we live in. The United States will thrive under the leadership and business savvy of Donald Trump; and it's going to be a glorious presidential administration. It is so exciting! The Lord is going to bless this nation and the next 12 years will be absolutely awesome!
     
  4. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Wow! The next twelve years? I once again have to admire your optimism. I am thinking more like 4 years. But then again, GWB was voted in for a second term, so who knows?
     
  5. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    8 years Trump + 4 years Pence = 12 years total!

    The swamp will be drained! Justice and integrity will be implemented. Many good things will be happening.
     
  6. Life Long Learning

    Life Long Learning Active Member

    So no more Clinton/Bush/Obama progressive Wars?

     
  7. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Wherever there are people, there will be problems, to include vices, greed, pride, skewed political opinions, ideologies, et al.
     
  8. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    All of my responses are "in my own words". Whose words did you think they were?

    Look, Clinton was selling the promise of political power to foreign governments for cash. I don't care what kind of charitable fig leaf you put on that, that's corruption. And frankly, it's kind of telling that Clinton supporters can't defend her without resorting to "But... but TRUMP!" Is Trump more corrupt than Clinton? Sure, maybe. If so, that hardly means it's somehow off the table to talk about Clinton's corruption. (Although, given that she lost and that donations to the Clinton Foundation are drying up accordingly, it could be reasonably argued that it's become a waste of time.)
     
  9. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member Staff Member

    When the Moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars and peace shall guide the planets and love will steer the stars. This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.
     
  10. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    That is oversimplifying the issue to the point of being completely wrong. There is no evidence - none - of any cash from donors making its way to any of the Clinton's pockets. There is ample evidence of this money helping address a bunch of global problems, including but not limited to HIV/AIDS epidemic, development, climate, women rights, and more.

    Did the Foundation benefit the Clintons in several indirect ways, eg. by propping up Bill's spoken word artist career? Yes, yes it did. You could equally said that the couple successfully used their celebrity (and they are stars - especially Bill) to raise funds for worthy causes, and their substantial policy, organization and networking skills to advance said causes.

    Look, "selling the promise of political power for cash" is how essentially ALL politicians between offices make money. A good case study would be Newt Gingrich and his various business ventures, but anyone will do - including Trump for flirting with running for President to boost his name licensing business. That's why the Republi-cons spent inordinate amount of resources investigating sheer nonsense of "Benghazi" affair, but did not even sniffed at Clinton Foundation.

    You can call this status quo "corruption", and you'll be right. But it's a knock against American system, rather than against Hillary. It's a good reason to care about issues like campaign finance, voter access, and Citizens United (where 1-percenters have the option to contribute infinite dark money directly to reelection slush funds rather than bothering with AIDS orphans and stuff); responsible voter prioritizing these particular concerns would likely support Bernie Sanders and, in general election - Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

    I'd just note that your country, where politicians trade on "promise" of "access" between gigs, is the envy of most of the world (where they just directly profiteer while in office). Ur-example and capo of this direct role is Trump's object of man-crush and role model, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

    Did you read Dr. Asimov's article? Flat-Earth and spherical-Earth theories are both demonstrably false; nevertheless, you'd have far more accurate model of the universe if you commit to spherical-Earth - or even flat-Earth! - than to say "both views have flaws therefore ARE EQUALLY WRONG". Any kind of equivalence between two camps here is likewise "wronger than wrong". "Me again" frankly has more coherent picture than that, despite being factually wrong on nearly everything.

    Personally, I didn't care about individual politicians much before this election, and was mildly in Obama camp last time. This time, I took a closer look - and unexpectedly developed a sort of late Hillary crush. The woman is a badass Hermione since 1969, despite all the crap people (Bill included) piled on her. Did she make mistakes? Sure she did. Do I wish they'd be more careful in avoiding scandal? I guess - but Obama WAS careful to avoid scandal, and look at how much good THAT did him. It would make even less good to Clintons; they caught major flak for her haircuts, glasses, and keeping her last name forpetessake. So while I look forward for whoever new generation Democrat star would emerge, and hope they'd be more consistent, I feel sad that the Clinton era was cut short like that.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2017
  11. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjxSCAalsBE
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2017
  12. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    No, frankly. If you can't be bothered to make the argument yourself, why should I take the trouble to let someone else do it for you?

    Yes, I'm aware that one is simply wrong, while the other is a lie-to-children.

    Conveniently, however, I'm not comparing Trump and Clinton much less equating them, so it doesn't apply to anything I'm saying. Dolores Umbridge may not be as bad as Voldemort, but she's still no Hermione Granger.

    High-level policymakers are extremely busy, very well guarded, and essentially unapproachable. But when one is a professional in the Washington, D.C. area, one is usually not more than two or three handshakes away from any of them, even the president. From this, these figures end up developing a reputation inside the Beltway for what their character is really like when the cameras aren't rolling and the mics aren't live. It may interest you to know that both of the Obamas have a very good reputation for being gracious and friendly, that Bill Clinton has a reputation for being palpably charismatic and charming in person, and that Hillary Clinton has a reputation for being an absolute harpy.

    I realize that's not even an anecdote, so disregard it if you like, but since you were talking about long-distance impressions I thought I'd throw that in there.
     
  13. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    I apologize. Isaac Azimov was a sci fi legend (one of the "Big Three" of the Golden Age of American science fiction, along with Clarke and Heinlein) and popular science writer, who has the distinction of being the most prolific American fiction and non-fiction author ever. Less known is his PhD in Biochemistry and Professorship at Boston University School of Medicine. I'm a fan (especially of the Foundation cycle), and assumed that you either already read this famous essay, or will find it a treat as I would.


    Yet both are scientific theories reflecting the reality to a certain degree. Treating them as equivalently false, however, is an epistemic falsehood that, to Dr. Azimov, is "wronger" than even assuming that Earth is flat. That's the point.

    No; you just reject them both in the same way. That's the attitude that gave us GWB and now Trump. It's wrong.

    I don't think you're getting your Harry Potter characters right. While Umbridge and Voldemort are very different characters, they are in alignment in a very important way: both are bigots committed to pureblood supremacy. No wonder Unbridge feels at home in a de-facto Voldemort administration. Hermione Granger, however, radically differs with Voldemort in all areas or policy (and is no doubt a very competent Minister of Magic now). Wink, wink.

    No, this actually make sense. I'm afraid the fact that Obamas are charismatic and gracious is not a big inside scoop, as is Bill's rock star appeal. Hillary, however, suffered from failure to meet other people's expectations all her life; I personally feel it is extremely unfair.

    You have probably forgotten that Hermione came off as a shrill, bookish, bossy know-it-all; the rest of the gang took about three books to properly warm up to her. She was also academically brilliant, compassionate, caring, level-headed and loyal soul who saved someone's life in every book with her character and mad skillz, never getting proper credit for it. I really wonder what kind of "reputation" did she earn around the Ministry in her post-Hogwarth reform and house elf emancipation efforts, and in her assent to the top office. Despite her status as a hero of the Second Wizarding War and support from the Boy-Who-Lived. Sorry, but this just fits Hillary Rodham like a glove, up to and including curly hair.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 7, 2017

Share This Page