Jump to content


The General Election


Recommended Posts

 

 

bnilhome, what the hell man?

 

I'm fine with you no liking Clinton. I don't like her. I'm fine with you listing reasons not to like her and complaining about her.

 

But for f#*k's sake, any woman who has people working for her or is in the spotlight has been called a bitch to her face or behind her back. That's the way things work regardless of the fact that things have gotten a lot better for women. It means sh#t all that people have done it to her.

 

Sorry, I should have provided more context. There have been multiple reports by members of the secret service that being assigned to Hillary was the worst assignment you could get, that she talked down and cussed out many officers, and hence none of them enjoyed working around her. Ronald Kessler is one of those agents that served in Bill's tenure and had regular interactions with both Clintons. I agree that women have had to break through glass ceilings, but the point is that there seem to be more stories about Hillary's diva-like behavior than other Democratic or GOP female politicians. As for name calling, I think I've seen a fair share of Trump-bashing on here including some calling him an a*s, douche, etc. My point was not to focus on the names used but rather how the candidates are perceived by those they work with or around.

 

As for the "who let the dogs out" video, that is just plain funny, no matter your political beliefs. She actually barked like a dog at one of her campaign stops.

 

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/what-the-secret-service-has-to-say-about-hillary-clinton_102015

 

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/secret-service-agent-says-good/

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282330-ex-secret-service-agent-clinton-occasionally-violent

 

And the bigger point is - perception of women in leadership or a powerful position no matter the source (body guards, co workers, employees etc) is skewed to the negative for the same traits that are perceived as strong and positive for men.

 

 

Well I think that must be your point which is fine. I have no issues with strong female executives and my top choice for the GOP nominee was Carly Fiorina followed by Rubio. And I think plenty of men can be labled "pricks" if they treat their employees or those around them with disdain and like they are trash, which gets to my point that many who have worked around, for, or with Trump tend to say more positive things about him as a person relative to his public persona, while you tend to see more who have worked around or for Hillary speak out against her.

Link to comment

 

Free education would be a wonderful thing for our nation. Give everyone the opportunity to attend and don't saddle them with the incredible burden that student loan debts currently are.

I'm sorry, but this just makes no sense in reality and would only make it more expensive for the bill payer, whomever that is, no matter what. Not even the model Europeans give all citizens a chance at school.

 

If you want to talk about debt, ask why college tuition skyrocketed as soon as cheap student loans were made available all Americans.

 

Rich kids don't need help and poor kids already get help.

 

These one size fits all boondoggles do not work. Ever.

 

The cost of attendance has skyrocketed as the states have pulled their part of tuition and universities jacked their fees way the hell up. The cost of a student sitting in the classroom and earning credits should be minimal. Prioritize education and it will payoff for everyone, not just those attending school, in the long run.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Here is a great read that I would recommend for anyone interested in the general election, even those that think Trump is a dope. It comes from his son-in-law who is not a super-partisan guy and has worked for Cory Booker's campaign in the past (who is supposed to be on Hillary's short list). For me this is a common theme I have heard about Trump, that those that know the real guy behind the scenes think he's a great guy, and the more you get to know him the more you will like him. Now most of us will never get to know him so we are simply left with what we see on television and via social media.

 

http://observer.com/2016/07/jared-kushner-the-donald-trump-i-know/

Trump and his people push this gigantic strawman about HIM not being racist, sexist, anti-Semitic at all himself.

 

Whether he himself is those things is open for debate. That's not the issue. The issue is he's using racist, sexist, anti-Semitic THINGS to further his brand and garner votes. He's playing footsie with the KKK and white supremacists to garner votes and anyone with a brain realizes it.

 

He may not be those things himself, but he's fine using them for his own gain. Arguably worse.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

 

 

 

Free education would be a wonderful thing for our nation. Give everyone the opportunity to attend and don't saddle them with the incredible burden that student loan debts currently are.

I'm sorry, but this just makes no sense in reality and would only make it more expensive for the bill payer, whomever that is, no matter what. Not even the model Europeans give all citizens a chance at school.

 

If you want to talk about debt, ask why college tuition skyrocketed as soon as cheap student loans were made available all Americans.

 

Rich kids don't need help and poor kids already get help.

 

These one size fits all boondoggles do not work. Ever.

The cost of attendance has skyrocketed as the states have pulled their part of tuition and universities jacked their fees way the hell up. The cost of a student sitting in the classroom and earning credits should be minimal. Prioritize education and it will payoff for everyone, not just those attending school, in the long run.

This is a fallacy that NPR actually proved wrong. We are funding college more than ever before. The dollars are just gobbled up by teachers, administrators and bankers.

 

If the education is meaningful, society benefits from productivity. But it's not always meaningful and it doesn't always make people more productive.

 

It's also not clear that it provides the most bang for a taxpayer's buck.

Link to comment

 

bnilhome, what the hell man?

 

I'm fine with you no liking Clinton. I don't like her. I'm fine with you listing reasons not to like her and complaining about her.

 

But for f#*k's sake, any woman who has people working for her or is in the spotlight has been called a bitch to her face or behind her back. That's the way things work regardless of the fact that things have gotten a lot better for women. It means sh#t all that people have done it to her.

 

Sorry, I should have provided more context. There have been multiple reports by members of the secret service that being assigned to Hillary was the worst assignment you could get, that she talked down and cussed out many officers, and hence none of them enjoyed working around her. Ronald Kessler is one of those agents that served in Bill's tenure and had regular interactions with both Clintons. I agree that women have had to break through glass ceilings, but the point is that there seem to be more stories about Hillary's diva-like behavior than other Democratic or GOP female politicians. As for name calling, I think I've seen a fair share of Trump-bashing on here including some calling him an a*s, douche, etc. My point was not to focus on the names used but rather how the candidates are perceived by those they work with or around.

 

As for the "who let the dogs out" video, that is just plain funny, no matter your political beliefs. She actually barked like a dog at one of her campaign stops.

 

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/what-the-secret-service-has-to-say-about-hillary-clinton_102015

 

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/secret-service-agent-says-good/

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282330-ex-secret-service-agent-clinton-occasionally-violent

 

 

Could that be because she's the most powerful, influential woman in our country and quite possibly the world?

Link to comment

 

 

 

bnilhome, what the hell man?

 

I'm fine with you no liking Clinton. I don't like her. I'm fine with you listing reasons not to like her and complaining about her.

 

But for f#*k's sake, any woman who has people working for her or is in the spotlight has been called a bitch to her face or behind her back. That's the way things work regardless of the fact that things have gotten a lot better for women. It means sh#t all that people have done it to her.

 

Sorry, I should have provided more context. There have been multiple reports by members of the secret service that being assigned to Hillary was the worst assignment you could get, that she talked down and cussed out many officers, and hence none of them enjoyed working around her. Ronald Kessler is one of those agents that served in Bill's tenure and had regular interactions with both Clintons. I agree that women have had to break through glass ceilings, but the point is that there seem to be more stories about Hillary's diva-like behavior than other Democratic or GOP female politicians. As for name calling, I think I've seen a fair share of Trump-bashing on here including some calling him an a*s, douche, etc. My point was not to focus on the names used but rather how the candidates are perceived by those they work with or around.

 

As for the "who let the dogs out" video, that is just plain funny, no matter your political beliefs. She actually barked like a dog at one of her campaign stops.

 

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/what-the-secret-service-has-to-say-about-hillary-clinton_102015

 

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/secret-service-agent-says-good/

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/282330-ex-secret-service-agent-clinton-occasionally-violent

 

And the bigger point is - perception of women in leadership or a powerful position no matter the source (body guards, co workers, employees etc) is skewed to the negative for the same traits that are perceived as strong and positive for men.

 

 

Well I think that must be your point which is fine. I have no issues with strong female executives and my top choice for the GOP nominee was Carly Fiorina followed by Rubio. And I think plenty of men can be labled "pricks" if they treat their employees or those around them with disdain and like they are trash, which gets to my point that many who have worked around, for, or with Trump tend to say more positive things about him as a person relative to his public persona, while you tend to see more who have worked around or for Hillary speak out against her.

 

 

This is entirely unique to the person. You consume different media from different places than everyone else.

 

If you can't find enough negative accounts of Trump, I could probably dig some up for you.

Link to comment

 

Free education would be a wonderful thing for our nation. Give everyone the opportunity to attend and don't saddle them with the incredible burden that student loan debts currently are.

 

I agree.

 

It's not a bad thing to have on a platform. But like many things, it's a bit of a fantasy.

 

Also, the proposal is to eliminate in-state tuition for families earning under 125K (I don't see why this shouldn't vary from state to state, but anyway ...). In state tuition at Cal-Berkeley is currently under $14K. University of Florida is around $6K. UNL is around $8K. Families earning under 125K already will apply for and get some amount of need based aid. Families significantly under 125K already get a lot of need-based aid.

 

College tuition can get absurdly expensive. But in state public university tuition has not, traditionally, fallen in this category.

 

It doesn't seem to me like there's a particularly big gulf being closed here.

 

 

You make an interesting point. By limiting it to state schools, we're subsidizing tuition only where it is already cheapest. A spin on this using a conservative principle is that eliminating tuition at state school should increase demand to attend them in a major way. That forces private institutions to either adapt and lower their prices (i.e., compete) or die out and make the system more efficient.

 

But dear Lord, it's big government, so it's scary.

 

I'm still not sold on free tuition. I don't think it's politically tenable at all. But it seems to be the current populist position that's in vogue, and it's a hell of a lot easier to sell that for votes than "I'm going to make community college free and the rest debt-free, if you do this and this and this." You've got to be able to sell it, I guess.

Link to comment

Trump is scheduled to meet with House Republicans today, or at least those that actually show up.

 

After months following his tweets and ducking questions about his latest outrageous comment, rank-and-file House Republicans will finally get a chance to see Trump in person during a GOP conference meeting. The session will be held at the Republican National Committee building, just blocks from the Capitol.

 

Yet there are likely to be a large number of GOP no-shows who miss — or outright skip — Trump’s appearance. In fact, some of the excuses they offer for not going seem suspiciously flimsy and signal just how hard it will be for Trump win the support of his own party establishment.

 

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) told reporters he had “a longstanding appointment downtown.” Another member said he had to be at the doctor’s office and couldn’t make it. A third said he had a “breakfast meeting.” The member — who asked not to be named — then pulled out his schedule for Thursday morning. When he saw that there wasn’t any event on his schedule, the member took out a pen and wrote “Breakfast meeting” on it. “See, I have one!” he joked.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/2016-hits-capitol-hill-thursday-225186

Link to comment

Meeting is already over. "At least 200" House Republicans were said to show up (there are 247 wiki tells me).

Trump hit on a number of safe Republican themes during his speech: tax reform, protecting the 2nd Amendment, repealing Obamacare, and the likelihood the next president will determine the balance of power on the Supreme Court. He preached unity and bashed both Hillary and Bill Clinton. Trump referred to Bill Clinton's meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch just as the Justice Department was winding down its investigation of Hillary Clinton's email practices.

 

Yet Trump also strayed into an area that Republicans didn't like. He once again praised late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein for killing terrorists, not something that a crowd of GOP lawmakers wanted to hear.

 

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) said he's still not convinced to support Trump, at least not yet.

 

"There was a lack of enthusiasm, you could feel it," Kinzinger said. Asked to describe the meeting, Kinzinger said it was "typical Donald Trump."

 

Kinzinger also said Trump brought up Saddam Hussein up on his own: "it was awkward. It was really awkward."

 


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-meets-house-republicans-225205#ixzz4DjNvnrhZ

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

House Democrats booed Bernie Sanders when they met earlier this week. I'd say there's dysfunction in both parties, but the reality is, Trump isn't a Republican and Bernie isn't a Democrat. Since these parties are private organizations and not specifically "the government," you'd think they would be able to better police who runs for their highest office.

Link to comment

To Knapp's point, I don't understand why parties have 'open' primaries in which non-party members can vote in their primaries. While there may be some truth that open primaries could be ( emphasis on could - it may not be the case) more reflective of the GE, it also is the cause of Trump becoming the nominee of the repub party. I think it waters down the message of the party and its distinctive differences from other parties. If the party wants to stand for specific ideals then let the party members decide and not those who are outside of the party who may have opposite ideals.

Link to comment

Well, there are several reasons for open primaries. One is that party leaders fear that the candidate that emerges would be unelectable in a general election, as that candidate would play to the extremes of the party to obtain the nomination, but then not be mainstream enough to appeal to moderate voters. And, we've seen evidence of that over the years. And in some states, open primaries are mandated by legislative action; changing that would be difficult particularly for states that have legislatures that meets once every two years.

But the idea is being broached, and should come up at the RNC.

Angry Republican leaders ready to shut door on open primaries

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...