carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,937 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 8, 2016 1:39:29 GMT
Well we will compare your projections to the end result. Do you have doubts about Clinton and her holding of office? I fully understand your desire to beat trump of course. I've moved my response to this thread as others quite rightly pointed out it was a bit of a diversion from the Prediction thread. So, doubts about Clinton? No and yes. It might seem that I should have been backing Bernie Sanders in the primaries, but although I like him a lot as a Senator and a voice for the left in American politics, I had major doubts about his ability to lead a team as President, or to enthuse enough voters to actually reach the presidency -Bernie has been successful as an individual, and an outsider, rather than as a team player. Hillary has a very progressive record as a senator, and was very much on the liberal wing by DW_Nominate scores. That surprises many, as there is very much a perception that she is a centrist, but she had a very solid record across a lot of progressive issues - well to the left of Obama. I like this a lot in a potential president.  Secondly, I am confident she'll get things done as President, she managed to get a lot done as a Senator, which is something that comes up again and again in her track record. She does deals with people (which some don't like) but one common thread is how often she's persuaded someone that she's giving them the best end of the deal, and then she's ended up walking away with exactly what she wanted, while the other side have found out she's given them nothing significant. This could be a really useful tool for dealing with an obstructive congress - I think if she has to deal with Paul Ryan and a narrow Republican House majority, she'll run rings around them. Thirdly, she is amazingly good on detail and complexity - her testimony when she was questioned by the House committee on Benghazi was amazing in her superior grasp of everything, her ability to deal with questions with tact and diplomacy while destroying their arguments, and her stamina in maintaining that level over a very long period. This corresponds with what has been said about her time as SoS, when her aides learned to fear her ability to know more than them about virtually every topic. We've seen at first hand with Cameron what happens when you have a leader who is content to skate over the surface of information, leaving the detail to others. I know which I prefer! Fourthly, she's dealt with decades of frankly appalling misogyny and propaganda from the right and come out unscathed and just as determined to make a difference. I know you're worried about her as hawkish on international affairs. She's certainly interventionist, but then so am I - internationalism can't just be passive, we need to actively engage in situations. My worry, such as it is, is that I think she might have the general American trait of not understanding the need to plan for outcomes of those interventions (again, Cameron shows it's not just an American problem) - I'm very happy to support intervention if there's a proper plan both for our exit, and for leaving things better and more stable than when we started. My other slight concern is that where she is not fully engaged with an issue (e.g. TPP and TTIP), she is often happy to go with the advice she receives rather than measure it critically. Everyone has their hobby horses, and there are probably some issues I'd consider paramount that she would dismiss. But, and it's quite a big but, while some see her changing her mind on things like TPP as showing her as lacking in firm principle, I think it shows that when presented with evidence she is willing to admit her mistakes. I think that we could end up viewing HRC as very similar to LBJ: not hugely popular, with a reputation as a tough and unforgiving negotiator, but who gets her (his) way on most of the manifesto. Thank you for the courtesy of a really well considered reply. You post a good case. We shall see very shortly. Hope the bedroom painting went well? |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 8, 2016 7:48:59 GMT
Someone tell pjones that Trump is a "cuckservative"! |
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Nov 8, 2016 7:56:19 GMT
I think that we could end up viewing HRC as very similar to LBJ: not hugely popular, with a reputation as a tough and unforgiving negotiator, but who gets her (his) way on most of the manifesto. LBJ had quite comfortable congressional majorities all throughout his term & a bit as president (even if the Southern wing could be a bit badly behaved at times), I can almost guarantee that Clinton won't enjoy that luxury. Also, whilst LBJ and Clinton both served in the Senate, LBJ managed to become the Democratic floor leader during his time there, and probably had a deeper, finer, and more nuanced understanding of Senate proceedure than Clinton likely has. That, and there was less acrimony between the Democrats and the Republicans at the time (I don't think the real nastiness truly started until the debacle over the Bork nomination). None of this is to say that Clinton is ineffective or anything like that, but Johnson certainly had a much better board to play with than Clinton likely will*. LBJ knew where the bodies were buried. * And if anything, should Clinton managed to accomplish half of what LBJ did, under less favourable circumstances, it could perhaps be said that she's even more effective. She still needs to get elected first, mind you.[/sub[ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 8:49:51 GMT
I've moved my response to this thread as others quite rightly pointed out it was a bit of a diversion from the Prediction thread. So, doubts about Clinton? No and yes. It might seem that I should have been backing Bernie Sanders in the primaries, but although I like him a lot as a Senator and a voice for the left in American politics, I had major doubts about his ability to lead a team as President, or to enthuse enough voters to actually reach the presidency -Bernie has been successful as an individual, and an outsider, rather than as a team player. Hillary has a very progressive record as a senator, and was very much on the liberal wing by DW_Nominate scores. That surprises many, as there is very much a perception that she is a centrist, but she had a very solid record across a lot of progressive issues - well to the left of Obama. I like this a lot in a potential president. Secondly, I am confident she'll get things done as President, she managed to get a lot done as a Senator, which is something that comes up again and again in her track record. She does deals with people (which some don't like) but one common thread is how often she's persuaded someone that she's giving them the best end of the deal, and then she's ended up walking away with exactly what she wanted, while the other side have found out she's given them nothing significant. This could be a really useful tool for dealing with an obstructive congress - I think if she has to deal with Paul Ryan and a narrow Republican House majority, she'll run rings around them. Thirdly, she is amazingly good on detail and complexity - her testimony when she was questioned by the House committee on Benghazi was amazing in her superior grasp of everything, her ability to deal with questions with tact and diplomacy while destroying their arguments, and her stamina in maintaining that level over a very long period. This corresponds with what has been said about her time as SoS, when her aides learned to fear her ability to know more than them about virtually every topic. We've seen at first hand with Cameron what happens when you have a leader who is content to skate over the surface of information, leaving the detail to others. I know which I prefer! Fourthly, she's dealt with decades of frankly appalling misogyny and propaganda from the right and come out unscathed and just as determined to make a difference. I know you're worried about her as hawkish on international affairs. She's certainly interventionist, but then so am I - internationalism can't just be passive, we need to actively engage in situations. My worry, such as it is, is that I think she might have the general American trait of not understanding the need to plan for outcomes of those interventions (again, Cameron shows it's not just an American problem) - I'm very happy to support intervention if there's a proper plan both for our exit, and for leaving things better and more stable than when we started. My other slight concern is that where she is not fully engaged with an issue (e.g. TPP and TTIP), she is often happy to go with the advice she receives rather than measure it critically. Everyone has their hobby horses, and there are probably some issues I'd consider paramount that she would dismiss. But, and it's quite a big but, while some see her changing her mind on things like TPP as showing her as lacking in firm principle, I think it shows that when presented with evidence she is willing to admit her mistakes. I think that we could end up viewing HRC as very similar to LBJ: not hugely popular, with a reputation as a tough and unforgiving negotiator, but who gets her (his) way on most of the manifesto. Thank you for the courtesy of a really well considered reply. You post a good case. We shall see very shortly. Hope the bedroom painting went well? Yes, thank you. had the room replastered so it was getting the first mist coat done. Another today, then we can see how his colour scheme of red, grey and black (he's 15, we've all done it) works. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,937
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 8, 2016 8:58:55 GMT
Thank you for the courtesy of a really well considered reply. You post a good case. We shall see very shortly. Hope the bedroom painting went well? Yes, thank you. had the room replastered so it was getting the first mist coat done. Another today, then we can see how his colour scheme of red, grey and black (he's 15, we've all done it) works. Yes. The oddities and vagaries of youth. When I was at that stage I wanted my room deep Oxford blue including the ceiling (believed it to have psychological powers for calmness and good) and offered to both buy it and do it myself. Parental disdain and purchase of Light Sand and told to do it anyway but with that. Good lesson. Correct choice. |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Nov 8, 2016 9:22:06 GMT
I know you're worried about her as hawkish on international affairs. She's certainly interventionist, but then so am I - internationalism can't just be passive, we need to actively engage in situations. My worry, such as it is, is that I think she might have the general American trait of not understanding the need to plan for outcomes of those interventions (again, Cameron shows it's not just an American problem) - I'm very happy to support intervention if there's a proper plan both for our exit, and for leaving things better and more stable than when we started. Of the many concerns I have, that is probably the biggest. Considering we haven't seen 'a proper plan for our exit, and for leaving things better and more stable than when we started' since 1945, I am more than just a bit sceptical. Iraq, Libya, Syria... she was staunchly behind all that, and look at the mess we're left with now. Even Bosnia and Kosovo are a mess to this day. She's a warhawk, and my biggest fear is we'll see things escalate with Russia. Europe won't be a great place to be then. I couldn't believe it when Johnson asked 'what is Aleppo', but on second thoughts I much prefer his happily ignorant isolationist approach - I voted Trump in our poll, but I'd certainly vote Johnson in a safe red or blue state, and I do hope he at least gets a decent vote in NM. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 10:02:10 GMT
Coulter of course has a point. Though I think the actual number would be 43 states. New England minus New Hampshire (but incl. Maine), Hawaii and Maryland (with its large black population) would all have D majorities even under the four grandparents rule.
(also a bit ironic that Trump wouldn't have the right to vote under this rule as all four of his grandparents were born in Europe - two in Scotland and two in Germany)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 10:04:10 GMT
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 8, 2016 10:11:03 GMT
Has anybody yet pointed out to the detestable cow that none of Donald Trump's Grandparents were born in America? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 10:29:01 GMT
Has anybody yet pointed out to the detestable cow that none of Donald Trump's Grandparents were born in America? Well, I just did if she reads this forum.  |
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122
|
Post by Eastwood on Nov 8, 2016 10:34:59 GMT
Has anybody yet pointed out to the detestable cow that none of Donald Trump's Grandparents were born in America? Well, I just did if she reads this forum. Time for a "Guess which Voteuk poster is Ann Coulter in disguise competition"...  |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,937
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 8, 2016 10:38:08 GMT
Has anybody yet pointed out to the detestable cow that none of Donald Trump's Grandparents were born in America? I am sure they will have done but why the vitriol. It is just an opinion which possibly has a grain of truth but could not be true of all states. Does she have other previous that annoys you? |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 8, 2016 10:59:01 GMT
Has anybody yet pointed out to the detestable cow that none of Donald Trump's Grandparents were born in America? I am sure they will have done but why the vitriol. It is just an opinion which possibly has a grain of truth but could not be true of all states. Does she have other previous that annoys you? It may be an opinion but it is an utterly appalling one as she essentially wants to turns millions of Americans into second class citizens. It is absolutely the antithesis of The America Dream. As for her previous, yes lots and lots of previous. She is an utterly vile individual and her contribution to public life has been disgraceful. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 8, 2016 11:22:24 GMT
Cunningly disguised as a lifelong conservative Republican who happens to have done of a bit of campaigning for Clinton as he can't stand Trump. Any evidence of him being a lifelong conservative? Because there's plenty of evidence that indicates that he's a paid bird dogger. Given the recent revelations confirming that the Clinton campaign directs paid 'bird doggers' to distrupt Trump/Pence event then whenever you see such a disruption reported you have to assume there's a high likelihood that its yet another 'bird dogger'. Is there any evidence that further indicates that this is what he is? Yes there is quite a lot. I've already posted some of this evidence in the other thread. I could post more but that would the leave the question of how much evidence it would take to convince you that he's a 'bird dogger'. The truth is that nothing would be good enough for you in terms of evidence. The only thing you would accept is if the story was presented that way in what you consider to be a 'respectable' news outlet. If the New York Times or the Guardian or the BBC ran a story saying that he was a paid provocateur oaid by the Clinton Campaign you would believe it. It wouldn't matter what evidence they presented, or how little evidence they presented, if they said that this claim had been confirmed by the evidence then you would just believe it. You would take whatever the New York Times or Guardian or BBC said and just swallow it like mothers milk. Alternatively if the same story is presented but not by any 'respectable' (in your view) news outlets then you simply won't accept it as being true or even likely. If doesn't matter how much evidence is assembled for you to look at. If the NYT/Guardian/BBC haven't told you to accept it as true then you simply won't accept it. Plenty of people like yourself who are reasonably intelligent but unwilling to think for themselves. Intriguing. After you chose to ignore that he has always been registered as a Republican or an independent, the sources accusing him of being a plant then said he's been using the address of his dead grandmother to cast absentee ballots. This brave investigative journalism managed to miss the fact that she is...er....alive. It's almost as if it's a smear. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 11:46:37 GMT
1 more day. 1 more day.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,946
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 8, 2016 11:48:32 GMT
Unless we have a repeat of 2000, of course  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 11:58:34 GMT
Unless we have a repeat of 2000, of course You bastard. You utter, utter bastard. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 8, 2016 12:01:55 GMT
Unless we have a repeat of 2000, of course Alternatively we could have a 270-268 electoral college result (or something similar) and then have to spend the next 40 days wondering about potential faithless electors, especially the die hard Sanders supporter in Washington. |
|
|
|
Post by mrhell on Nov 8, 2016 12:08:22 GMT
Has anybody yet pointed out to the detestable cow that none of Donald Trump's Grandparents were born in America? Yes. Quite quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 8, 2016 12:36:37 GMT
Sounds like brisk business in most states so far from reports. Lots of photos of queues in New York and Ohio.
|
|
