LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Well, then he's not too young.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
If not Hillary, who?
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
Well, then he's not too young.
Donal
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 9,372
I don't think it was just the Hillary ran or was the nominee. A big part of it was the perception (with lots of circumstantial evidence and bad optics to support it) that Hillary was the Chosen One. That she was the choice of the rich donors and that it was her turn. The idea of a legacy candidate was not a popular one (hi, Jeb!) The GOP capitalized on that plus the 30 years of attacks on her to depress voters. They won not by making folks excited about Trump, but by turning people off all together.
I'm not interesting in compromising with the left in anyway, they ALL need to be defeated. Over and over, they will never give up on subjugating people to get power.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The GOP didn't capitalize on it, though. The GOP establishment were just as beclowned by the rise of Trump as the Democrats were. Democratics? Damn. Jus as beclowned as the progs.
After he won the primary against their best #nevertrump efforts, the best they could do was roll with it. Trump certainly benefited from 30 years of calling out Hillary Clinton as the nasty woman she is, but I doubt he's what the GOP had in mind when they set that in motion.
As for turning people off altogether... You know what? I bet if Trump hadn't run this year, voters wouldn't have been motivated to deliver all those state legislature and governorship victories either.
Belz...
Fiend God
Considering that you've just described the right to a T, you need a lesson in irony.
One of these days you'll have to give me your definition of "the left". I suspect that will be hilarious.
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
I suspect that when one is so far to the extreme right, one sees even those who are moderate right as "leftists", to say nothing of centrists or actual left wing people. I've seen far left folks on here comparing the Democratic Party to Nazis as well, so I know the perception is just as skewed with distance from that side.
I'd like an example please? Show me the subjugation of the right?
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Politics has long been having a recruitment and retention crisis. Almost any other career is more attractive.
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
Both parties in the US have young up and coming stars. Some just want to ignore that to claim that the 80 year olds are the only hope for Democrats.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
I suspect that had the GOP had an annointed candidate and a sanctioned alternative or two the Trump phaenomenon could never have occurred. The crisis would have been postponed but not averted and four more years would have been lost. As it transpired the Republican clown-car filled the stage with clowns, making Trump one of a crowd instead of the clown. And what's more, the most recognisable.
It'll be rough for a while, of course, but putting things off tends to make them worse in the end.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Parties always have young up-and-coming stars. They're young, hopeful, full of ambition. The problem lies in the hollowing-out of the population between the up-and-coming and the septuagenarians. The Democratic Party's "up-and coming" of, say, twenty years ago seem to have upped and gone to more satisfying pastures.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
I think the reference is to your determination to defeat the left, which implies annihilation or subjugation. No alternative springs to mind.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Let's not slip into false equivalence. Significantly more right-wingnuts equate the Democratic Party with Nazis than left-wingnuts, who comprise, lets face it, a pretty small sample. Large from logger's perspective, I suspect, but that's down to a horizon effect. The effect of a very limited horizon.
OMGturt1es
Graduate Poster
To sorta answer the OP, it wouldn't matter. Hillary didn't fail the Democratic electorate; the electorate failed Hillary. At this point it's quite clear that Hillary lost because too many Democratic voters stayed home, assuming she would win, and not wanting to otherwise violate their perceived purity by voting for someone who had actually gotten her hands dirty over decades of real-world politics. They drank from the right wing fever swamps and somehow assumed the worst of a lifelong public servant while downplaying the risk of a Trump win. Hopefully this is a stark lesson for future elections.
That wasn't my meaning of subjugation and he commented on it as such. The left isn't the "free speech" left it used to be. Now it's the left that uses government to subjugate people.
Care to comment Argumemnon?
I certainly hope you keep thinking this way, I wonder who's "turn" it will be next. Instead of changing your hard left ways, you're setting yourself up for defeat again.
I doubt you are even thinking correctly on your perceived Trump risk.
What is your perceived Trump risk?
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,416
I agree with the general direction you're going, but it's a bit more nuanced.
Politics is a very lucrative field...for feathering their nest and getting appointed to some cushy board assignments with those they play ball for.
Not that the career politicians are notably better, since they're still beholden to the need to generate large campaign warchests to blanket the airwaves with advertisements.
But yes, there is an obvious trend towards moving back and forth between corporate jobs and appointed positions. It's a much less stressful career than trying to stay in an elected position indefinitely. Representing the interests of certain industry groups means they get you into a government job, you help them tweak the things they want tweaked. If their side is diminished in power for a while, they get you a few nice cushy board positions for a while until they're back in power and they call you up from the bench again. At worst you might find yourself in front of some friends of your friends so they can yell at you in front of cameras for a few hours, but the worst they can do to you is make it so you go back to the cushy board postings until everyone forgets about it.
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,416
Or maybe it's the way that attitude comes across like anything less than unflinching obedience to whomever the party anoints marks one as being lumped in with the most vile criticism.
maxpower1227
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,998
What about someone like Julian Castro or Tulsi Gabbard?
OMGturt1es
Graduate Poster
Trump is a threat to our liberal democracy. Read his biographies. He's a sociopathic, narcissistic, authoritarian who notoriously doesn't read or think about policy or government and is completely willing to lie, cheat, and break the law in order to enrich himself. He does not understand how our government works or the limits of Executive Power intended by the framers of the constitution. He will attempt to rule as an authoritarian, autocrat in a kleptocracy because that's just who he is, who he always has been, and who he always will be. The future of our democracy now rests on his inner circle and congressional Republicans to keep him in line.
Trump is also a threat to the post-war liberal order. He has a history of not understanding the foreign policy benefits of trade and immigration. And his well documented history of cultivating and exploiting relationships with Russian oligarchs and mobsters leaves him almost certainly compromised by Putin, who is actively attempting to undermine the post-war order.
Of course, I think almost all his policy decisions are huge risks, because he literally doesn't read or think about policy. But at this point I would consider it a luxury to simply worry about policy.