U.S. Election: My Female Heritage Biases Me From Making This Thread

[ThinkerX]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

THE ONE WITH THE POWER TO VANQUISH THE DARK LORD APPROACHES

BORN TO THOSE WHO HAVE DEFIED HIM IN POLLING
BORN IN THE 50TH STATE ALLEGEDLY

AND THE DARK LORD WILL MARK HIM AS HIS EQUAL

BUT HE WILL HAVE DONORS THE DARK LORD KNOWS NOT

AND EITHER MUST DIE AT THE HAND OF THE OTHER

FOR NEITHER CAN LIVE  WHILE THE OTHER CAUCUSES
THE ONE WITH THE POWER TO VANQUISH THE DARK LORD WILL BE ELECTED AS THE ELEVENTH MONTH IS BORN

 

Cute.  I mean it

But what makes you think somebody as old as Clinton with her negatives would be able to mount a second run?  Highest starting negatives EVER for a president and an opposition party that regards her as utter scum and WILL sabotage her at every opportunity?

And what makes you think Trump WILL NOT do something majorly impeachable?  His entire campaign is based on the sort of things of which impeachments are made, plus he's highly unpopular among the republicans in power.  He chooses somebody the establishment considers relatively sane and capable as Veep, do you REALLY think they won't cooperate with the Democrats to get rid of him when he goes off the rails?

[Jace, Extat]

Why would Dems impeach Trump?

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Cute.  I mean it

But what makes you think somebody as old as Clinton with her negatives would be able to mount a second run?  Highest starting negatives EVER for a president and an opposition party that regards her as utter scum and WILL sabotage her at every opportunity?

Two things make me think this.

For starters, Clinton's negatives always go up with campaigning, and always drop with running. Remember, she had the highest popularity of ANY democrat in any position 4 years ago as SoS. She is very, very good at actually getting things done, especially with others. I'm also fairly optimistic about the US in the next 4 years. 

The other suspicion is that the taint of Trump is going to hurt a lot of Republicans, who are going to be pushing hard to show that they, too, can Get Things Done. The taint of Trump is also going to murder a whole generation of potential Republican running mates. Who is going to run against her in 2020? Paul Ryan is showing how to kill himself in nice easy chunks, Ted Cruz is still a zodiac killer, John Kasich is still a nobody, Mitt Romney...maybe? Seems unlikely though. Rubio is even worse than Cruz, and I suspect Bush isn't going to get more backing any time soon. Who is up?

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

9 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Why would Dems impeach Trump?

Cause they are pathetic poopy-pantsers. Really bad political party. They are many other parties that are better.

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Cause they are pathetic poopy-pantsers. Really bad political party. They are many other parties that are better.

I'm kind of being serious. Why should democrats impeach Trump if he were to win?

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I'm kind of being serious. Why should democrats impeach Trump if he were to win?

Well, other than wanting to get rid of a president who is breaking the law? 

Strategically, being able to make the Republican party the party of the most crooked and horrible presidents is a fairly good branding strategy. It makes people want to flee the party (like it did with Bill Clinton to a degree), it makes it harder to want to associate with the Republicans, it makes it very, very easy to deride anyone who supported him, and it ends his tenure earlier. Depends a lot on the VP, I suppose; if I were Trump and were scared of that, I'd try and get a VP that the Democrats were even more terrified of getting in. 

[Kalbear]

Also in math news, and probably only amusing to me, in order for Sanders to get a majority of pledged delegates he must win DC by +1050%. 

And also force Clinton to lose by -986%. 

If you reject the notion that Clinton cannot lose by -1000% or so, then Sanders has a tougher road - he has to win by 2010%. That seems a lot harder.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

VP Noms for the lulz...

Trump/Omarosa

Clinton/Franken

 

/In for a penny, in for a pound

 

 

[Jace, Extat]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, other than wanting to get rid of a president who is breaking the law? 

Strategically, being able to make the Republican party the party of the most crooked and horrible presidents is a fairly good branding strategy. It makes people want to flee the party (like it did with Bill Clinton to a degree), it makes it harder to want to associate with the Republicans, it makes it very, very easy to deride anyone who supported him, and it ends his tenure earlier. Depends a lot on the VP, I suppose; if I were Trump and were scared of that, I'd try and get a VP that the Democrats were even more terrified of getting in. 

That's all great for the short term, but we all know the racists and fearmongers will regroup in short order against the next great liberal threat. For Trump to get elected we have to start with the assumption that hordes of former democrat voters will be jumping ship, then they expect to be rescued from the ship they decided to sink?

I say no. If the Republicans are in a position where they're willing to bargain to get rid of Trump then that means they'd prefer the alternative. Don't give that to them, leave them to drown in the ocean of horrors they've allowed to form from their ranks. Impeachment leaves the angle that those evil democrats refused to let the misunderstood genius use his bag of magic racist beans to cure all of the problems while opening the more pliable new president to whatever horrifying bill the republicans want passed next.

On the other hand, forcing them to swallow this caricature of a cartoon drawing of a human cave depiction of a man for the prescribed 4 years would pretty much tank the nation so thoroughly that we might be able to put to rest this notion of 'run the government like a business' and get some of these apathetic fucks to pay attention. Now unfortunately for some around here a Trump presidency will not spark this glorious Sanders revolution, but I wonder if the lack of such a revolution might bring some of these wayward children back into the fold. If only in a quest to staunch the bleeding. Then democrats get to accuse the republicans of presiding over the two worst economic disasters not only in living memory, but in the history of the nation. That (I would hope) could be far more damaging to their party than labeling a bunch of racists and willfully ignorants 'crooks'.

There's not even a whole lot to say against not impeaching him either, if he's elected then the republicans almost certainly have a majority in both houses and Reid or Pelosi can shrug and tell the truth 'you stupid fucks voted for him or neglected to vote against him'.

Make no mistake, I'm not saying that's what will happen or what should happen or even that it's a good idea,that's just me. And I'm fucking hateful like that.

[Myshkin]

Al Gore

/discussion 

[GrimTuesday]

19 minutes ago, Triskan said:

Besides Warren the names I feel I've heard most for Clinton's VP are Sherrod Brown and Tom Perez.  Are any of y'all hearing any other names recently?  I know that way in the past I heard Julian Castro's name, but i don't feel like I've heard much of that lately.

Is O'Malley under any consideration?  I think he may sound "meh" to a lot of people, but I think he's the right age and experience and i the ballpark of Clinton ideologically.  I don't think it's a pick that generates much excitement, but per Myshkin it's a good pick for the future. 

Who else though?  I actually have hard time seeing the all-female ticket with Warren.

Here's a darkhorse thought I've not heard from anywhere else:  Jeff Merkley, Senator from Oregon.  He's pretty good at coming off as Presidential, and he was the biggest Senate break for Bernie.  And he's about O'Malley's age.  So he's the potential bridge to the Bros, he would probably pass the test for VP that Palin couldn't if you catch my drift, and he's neither too young or too old.

I'd love to see Merkley get on the ticket. It would be cool to see a guy from the Pacific Northwest finally get some big time national exposure. Also, unlike Warren, we don't have to worry so much about a republican governor replacing him with a republican. Also, maybe then Steve Novick might run for Senate again, then we'll get more ads like this

That's right dear reader, that is a 4 foot 9 inch man with a hook who mounted a solid campaign in 2008, eventually losing to Merkley... Very qualified, but just bizarre for a political candidate (also, I just read that he has no fibulas in his legs, holy shit).

I've realized this could be construed as demeaning, but I'm not trying to be. Honestly, I was pretty impressed when he ran for office not only because it takes a lot of courage for someone who may not fit the mold of politician to throw their hat into the ring, but also because he was a strong advocate for the environment, something that I think we need more of.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

15 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

Al Gore

/discussion 

 

[GrimTuesday]

23 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

Al Gore

/discussion 

He's too busy with... other things

 

[ThinkerX]

Not so good labor report:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/frightening-number-of-unemployed-have-stopped-looking-for-work/ar-AAgNM4F?li=BBnbfcN&ocid=msnclassic

 

 

Quote

 

Job creation, after averaging over 200,000 for much of the recovery, has slowed considerably this year. May saw just 38,000 new jobs, part of a trend in which payrolls have grown an average of 116,000 over the past three months and less than 150,000 for all of 2016.

The greatest concentration of unemployment is in the 18-29 age group, which comprises one-third of all the jobless:

Other highlights of the poll:

• 83 percent say economic benefits are skewed to the rich
• 66 percent say they don't apply for minimum-wage jobs because the pay is too low
• The unemployed are spending just 11.7 hours a week looking for work.
• More than half — 51 percent — say they haven't had a job interview since 2014.
• There's virtually no stand-out preference in the presidential race: 27 percent prefer presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, while 23 percent favor likely Republican standard-bearer Donald Trump.

While much has been made over the decline in the labor force participation rate — at 62.6 percent, it is just off its lowest level since late 1977 — some economists think the fear is overdone. They argue that the drop is due in large part to an aging population, among other causes.

 

An entire generation, out of work or working part time, saddled with massive student loan debt and an economy skewed against them - at least from their POV.  I do not see this situation improving in the future.  Recipe for radical politics, desperate out of work people do desperate things.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I very seriously doubt either Trump or Clinton would be impeached and removed in their hypothetical first terms. First, impeaching and removing presidents just doesn't happen very often. I mean it's only happened once. Unlike Brazil, we generally don't remove elected officials before their terms are up.

second, you're not going to get  two third of the Senate to agree on it. I mean Republicans think Obama's presidency has been an unmitigated disaster from day one and plagued by dictatorial actions. Fringe elements have been calling for his impeachment since before he was inaugurated. Meanwhile Democrats think he's in the top 10. Your simply not going to get enough people to agree that a President needs to be impeached. 

[ThinkerX]

28 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

I very seriously doubt either Trump or Clinton would be impeached and removed in their hypothetical first terms. First, impeaching and removing presidents just doesn't happen very often. I mean it's only happened once. Unlike Brazil, we generally don't remove elected officials before their terms are up.

second, you're not going to get  two third of the Senate to agree on it. I mean Republicans think Obama's presidency has been an unmitigated disaster from day one and plagued by dictatorial actions. Fringe elements have been calling for his impeachment since before he was inaugurated. Meanwhile Democrats think he's in the top 10. Your simply not going to get enough people to agree that a President needs to be impeached. 

Bill Clinton was impeached by a slightly less rabid version of the GOP, though not removed from office. 

 

Obama wasn't impeached because he didn't seriously violate the law and despite the rhetoric, both sides knew it.  Plus, the republicans never had the votes.

 

The republicans probably won't have the votes to impeach Clinton either, barring an epic midterm disaster. They can, however, block pretty much anything she attempts through the normal legislative process,

 

Trump, though, is another story.  He is universally despised among democrats, has multiple enemies of note among the republicans, and his entire campaign is based on actions that amount to major abuse of power.  More, he is unstable and egotistical enough to act along those lines, with utterly disastrous consequences.   Unless his VP is equally crazy, at that point a bipartisan effort to impeach Trump becomes at least possible.

 

Again - what makes you think Trump won't do something impeachable in a major way?

 

[Kelli Fury]

1 hour ago, Triskan said:

 

So who is the next gen?  Kind of a vacuum isn't there?

Julian Castro, Deval Patrick, Keith Ellison, Amy Klobuchar

[lokisnow]

6 hours ago, Myshkin said:

Elizabeth Warren will be 74 in 2024. That will probably preclude her from running for president. I really think Hillary's VP should be someone who can and will run in 2024.

Since the passage of the... Err eleventh or twelfth amendment, the only sitting Vice President at the end of his Vice President term then elected to the presidency have been van buren and hw bush.

the vice presidency is a terrible government position for someone to run for president from.

[GrimTuesday]

24 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Trump, though, is another story.  He is universally despised among democrats, has multiple enemies of note among the republicans, and his entire campaign is based on actions that amount to major abuse of power.  More, he is unstable and egotistical enough to act along those lines, with utterly disastrous consequences.   Unless his VP is equally crazy, at that point a bipartisan effort to impeach Trump becomes at least possible.

This brought a thought to mind regarding how the GOP might see this as an opportunity rather than the unmitigated disaster that it seems like a a Trump presidency would be. If looked at in the right light, this could be a boon to the Republican party in that by going so far to the crazy right, the next election cycle, they could run on a platform of sanity, kind of rebranding themselves while not actually doing it. Sure, maybe I am looking too much at the long game here, but I think that if Trump becomes President, and the Republicans kick up enough of a fuss, they can make it appear that they are pushing back against the right wing fringe, while remaining pretty much where they were in say, 2008. Like I said, probably unlikely, but I don't have a ton of faith in the American electorate to trust them to not get manipulated like this.

[lokisnow]

4 hours ago, alguien said:

The reason I like Warren is that I think she'd go a long way towards repairing the rift between Sanders and Clinton supporters. But I get the Senate calculus that favors keeping her there. 

Who, then, would be a good, progressive VP pick that might assuage progressive concerns? 

The only other names I've seen batted around are Julian Castro and Tim Kaine. 

Maybe she should just nominate Obama to be her VP. The head explosion from the GOP alone might be worth it.

Labor secretary Perez is the best choice for vp.