• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
hgc said:
I hadn't noticed that Hillary is bad at building consensus. She ran for president exactly once before, and would be president today if the fluky candidacy of Barack Obama hadn't come along. You are conflating the Clinton's being wildly out of touch with your preferred program with being un-electable. You'd best step back, look at the polls and the structural realities of a Republican's chances of getting an electoral vote majority, and prepare yourself for the nightmare scenario. Your personal disdain is far from universal.
Click to expand...

Hillary getting elected is indeed a nightmare scenario, for a whole lot of reasons.

The fact is she has been awful at everything she has ever tried.
 
SezMe said:
Since that cuts both ways, neither side can flog the issue. For example, we are now in what has been called the Adelson (sp?) Primary. The one in which potential candidates line up to kiss Sheldon's patootie in hopes of getting the ~$100 he plans to spend on the 2016 election. Remember it was Sheldon alone that kept the Gingrich bandwagon going for as long as it did.

Both sides suck up to Big Money so that as a corruption issue just doesn't have legs.

PS: I'm going to try to remember this thread and rub EG3K's nose in it come November, 2016.
Click to expand...

On reflection, I think you might be right. I thought this might have some force because Democrats are often painted as being anti-corporate/big money. But there are many examples of this blind spot when it's "their guy."

Even Al Gore and his jet plane travels (v. carbon footprint/global warming) didn't really go anywhere.

Maybe we vote for people, and the attributes we think they have, rather than the behaviors?
 
bruto said:
If you want to gain a small iota of political credibility, you could start by using the names of the parties accurately. It is the Democratic election strategy, or the Democrats' election strategy. There is no "Democrat" party. Messing up this very simple name is a sign either of stupidity or the kind of carelessness that the presence of run-on sentences, dropped capitals, and absent punctuation suggests.
Click to expand...

It's neither of those things, it's a part of a deliberate strategy to rebrand using language.

Listen to some right wing radio, plenty of them love to talk about the "Democrat" party.

Partly I think it's to sever any associations with the idea of "democracy" and partly it's because by using non-standard language, they get to associate the word with only their own negative view and then brand their enemy with it.

Personally I believe that calling one's opponents by anything other than their own chosen title is more often than not, a sneaky rhetorical tactic and tells you a lot about the ethics and honesty of the speaker.
 
A Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party. Thus, if one wants to shorten that to Democrat Party I don't think that's a "sneaky rhetorical tactic," or imputes the "honesty of the speaker."
 
16.5 said:
Lets not kid ourselves, in order to accomplish anything like that you have to build consensus. Hillary and the Clintons are so wildly out of touch and arrogant that will never happen. She's been running for President for 15 years and she really sucks at that, so what makes you think that she'll be better at being President?
Click to expand...

In your opinion, are there any Republican hopefuls that could be said to be so out-of-touch and arrogant as to be unable to build consensus?
 
xjx388 said:
A Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party. Thus, if one wants to shorten that to Democrat Party I don't think that's a "sneaky rhetorical tactic," or imputes the "honesty of the speaker."
Click to expand...


Agreed. It's neither sneaky nor dishonest. It's a straight-up schoolyard taunt.
 
xjx388 said:
A Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party. Thus, if one wants to shorten that to Democrat Party I don't think that's a "sneaky rhetorical tactic," or imputes the "honesty of the speaker."
Click to expand...

Why exactly would "one want to shorten that"?
 
Umm... seems like there were all sorts of financial "scandals" associated with the Clintons prior to Bill's first election. It didn't stop him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom