US elections - may the polls be ever in your favor

[Martell Spy]

It's funny how all the tap-dancing around Trump and his comments and views mirrors the 50 years of tap-dancing by the Republican Party around the Southern Strategy and coded racism.

Trump's not a racist, despite his various comments. We know this because he says he's not a racist and that latinos love him. He can only be a racist if he comes out in a KKK robe and shouts that he's a racist, or some equally obvious act. anything short of that it's fine and he's not a racist, as long as he continues to insist he is not one.

Trump is not trampling on our political norms against inciting violence and respecting the results of democratic elections. we know this, because he would deny he was doing anything like that. As long as he doesn't out right tell his followers to take up arms in the event he loses the election, or some equally extreme act/rhetoric, then Trump is not violating our political norms. As long as he continues to deny it, we should believe him.

I should be happy that prospects look very good for the Democratic party this year. But I'm deeply depressed by this election, and it has nothing to do with Clinton. Trump is deeply un-American. I fear the long term damage he may have on our country. I would have preferred a Rubio or Cruz victory and a Democratic party loss to what our country is being put through.

 

 

[lokisnow]

4 hours ago, Triskan said:

I'm checking out the aggregate of polls on realclearpolitics and seeing some of the devastating numbers for Trump such as Clinton up 9 in Pennsylvania (again, this is the average and not one poll), and it's bleak for Trump across the board at the moment.  But I notice that Trump not only leads in Missouri but is up 6 there.  I feel like since I got into following politics around the turn of the century this state has become more and more red, and I have a hard time making sense of that.  It's a middle-sized state compared to the nation and yet has two pretty large metros in St. Louis and Kansas City and a pretty big college town.  It made sense to me when it was a very purple state.  Can anyone explain this?

So many interconnecting factors here, but there is one big one.

Fundamentally, Missouri went red because of NAFTA, the good Union industrial jobs were largely located in the big cities and once Clinton sent all those jobs out of the country forever, the democrats no longer had the numbers left in the state to keep it a swing state.  Missouri lost an electoral college vote in the last census (each of the last two I think. But too lazy to look it up), and those voters that moved out were the ones Clinton condemned and banished, sacrificed on the alter of ever more outrageous east coast profits and profligacy.

looking forward to tpp further destroying the American middle class, further destroying the Midwest, and accelerating inequality to ever higher extremes under the new president Clinton.

 

[Tempra]

9 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Exactly how many judges were prevented from assuming office because of this obstructionism? Because I think there'd have to be quite a few to match the Republican antics of a) blockading the DC court; and b ) stonewalling the president on the Scalia replacement.

 

The only Obama judicial nominee that the Republicans can block without the support of Democrats is Merrick Garland.  Of course, Harry Reid invoked the "nuclear" option to get around Republican obstructionism. Under Bush, Republicans had to threaten the nuclear option to get some of Bush nominees confirmed.

Did you also forget that the "blockading" of the DC Court occurred under Democrats, too?  John Roberts seat was left vacant for years until Obama got Judge Millett confirmed.  Bush's successful DC Court nominees only made after the nuclear option threat.

Miguel Estrada, Peter Kessler, Robert Conrad, and Steven Matthews to name but a few were all blocked in committee.  God knows how many others would have been blocked but were not nominated after Arlene Specter said that Democrats would not act on Bush nominees during the (lame duck) session of the 109th Congress.

 

As this isn't related to the current election, I'll end this discussion here.

[DanteGabriel]

9 hours ago, Tempra said:

So, like, totally different.  Got it!

As for an example of congressmen attempting to delegitimize Bush?  Look no further than the obstructionism surrounding Bush's judicial nominees, which is often cited as an example of Republicans delegitimizing Obama.  That's very different, too, right?

What a pathetic act. You really can't address the vast difference between the way Democratic politicians behaved with Bush and how Obama was treated by Congressional Republicans who swore before he was inaugurated that they'd stop him from achieving anything, how they'd make him a one-term president. Did any Congressional Democrats try to circulate the idea that Bush was ineligible to serve, that he was a foreign agent, a person who hated America, tried to suggest his religion was anything that he claimed to be?

Dragging your feet over judicial confirmations is not the same as de-legitimizing a President with birther inquiries and announcing you won't let him do anything. But before we can even have an argument over who got screwed worse in judicial confirmations, fucking well address the way Congressional Republicans treated the Democratic President you claim to have twice voted for.

[Tempra]

29 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

What a pathetic act. You really can't address the vast difference between the way Democratic politicians behaved with Bush and how Obama was treated by Congressional Republicans who swore before he was inaugurated that they'd stop him from achieving anything, how they'd make him a one-term president. Did any Congressional Democrats try to circulate the idea that Bush was ineligible to serve, that he was a foreign agent, a person who hated America, tried to suggest his religion was anything that he claimed to be?

Dragging your feet over judicial confirmations is not the same as de-legitimizing a President with birther inquiries and announcing you won't let him do anything. But before we can even have an argument over who got screwed worse in judicial confirmations, fucking well address the way Congressional Republicans treated the Democratic President you claim to have twice voted for.

Birther inquiries were ridiculous and racist.  No questions about that.

Your other examples are of an entirely different character and nature.  OMG, Republicans tried to impeach Clinton for obstructing justice and perjury when he lied under oath in a sexual harassment case filed against him.  (He lost his bar license for that BTW.  Surely part of the vast right wing conspiracy, though.)  Or TEH HORROR of Republicans investigating why ATF was allowing guns to be sold illegally, which resulted in the death of an ATF agent. Or god forbid republicans investigate the legality of a loan made to a company that cost the Government hundreds of millions of dollars and was raided by the FBI.  Can you believe the temerity of Republicans? 

The "selected not elected" mantra that many democrats took towards Bush is the only the similar example to the birther conspiracy when it comes to truly delegitimizing a sitting president.  

 

Also, are you questioning my qualifications as a democratic voter because I won't join your echo chamber?  Really?  

[LongRider]

The birther shit is based in racism, the selected shit was based on the Supreme Court decision.  Very different.  The obstructionism towards Obama is racism based, the antipathy towards Bush was not raced based.  Trying to tell me they are the same is very unconvincing.

[Ice Queen]

5 hours ago, lokisnow said:

So many interconnecting factors here, but there is one big one.

Fundamentally, Missouri went red because of NAFTA, the good Union industrial jobs were largely located in the big cities and once Clinton sent all those jobs out of the country forever, the democrats no longer had the numbers left in the state to keep it a swing state.  Missouri lost an electoral college vote in the last census (each of the last two I think. But too lazy to look it up), and those voters that moved out were the ones Clinton condemned and banished, sacrificed on the alter of ever more outrageous east coast profits and profligacy.

looking forward to tpp further destroying the American middle class, further destroying the Midwest, and accelerating inequality to ever higher extremes under the new president Clinton.

 

I see this blaming Clinton for NAFTA a lot, but that's not what happened. NAFTA was negotiated by George HW Bush and signed on December 17, 1992.

Clinton didn't take office until January 20, 1993. NAFTA went into effect on January 1, 1994.

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Tempra said:

Birther inquiries were ridiculous and racist.  No questions about that.

Your other examples are of an entirely different character and nature.  OMG, Republicans tried to impeach Clinton for obstructing justice and perjury when he lied under oath in a sexual harassment case filed against him.  (He lost his bar license for that BTW.  Surely part of the vast right wing conspiracy, though.)  Or TEH HORROR of Republicans investigating why ATF was allowing guns to be sold illegally, which resulted in the death of an ATF agent. Or god forbid republicans investigate the legality of a loan made to a company that cost the Government hundreds of millions of dollars and was raided by the FBI.  Can you believe the temerity of Republicans? 

The "selected not elected" mantra that many democrats took towards Bush is the only the similar example to the birther conspiracy when it comes to truly delegitimizing a sitting president.  

 

Also, are you questioning my qualifications as a democratic voter because I won't join your echo chamber?  Really?  

I don't question your "qualifications" because I have no idea what you think I'm qualifying you for. I'm questioning your intellectual honesty.

The Republicans have treated Obama as an illegitimate President since before he was inaugurated. The birther bullshit is part of that. I notice you didn't address the unprecedented obstruction of Obama, including the ridiculous debt ceiling fights that have never been an issue before. How about simple breakdowns in decorum like the asshole shouting "You lie!" at Obama on the floor of Congress, or inviting a foreign head of state to address Congress to criticize the President? How about sending a letter to Iran to undermine the President while nuclear negotiations went on?

As for Clinton -- lying under oath was worth being disbarred. I think more dishonest politicians who are lawyers should be disbarred. He should have received censure from Congress. An impeachment was a vast overreach, and I think most people, possibly even Republicans, see that now. If Congressional Democrats were anywhere near as vicious or as eager to undo an election as Republicans were, Reagan would have been impeached over Iran Contra, and Bush the Lesser over the Iraq war intelligence and the US attorneys scandal, with its own millions of deleted emails.

But go on waving your hands about how some obstruction of Bush's judges is somehow equivalent to the way Republicans have had it out for Obama and Clinton. Go on proclaiming that "many" nameless Democrats saying "selected not elected" in some imagined forum is equivalent to eight years of reckless and unprecedented obstruction by elected Republican leaders or the impeachment of a sitting President for lying to cover up a blowjob.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Tempra said:

Miguel Estrada, Peter Kessler, Robert Conrad, and Steven Matthews to name but a few were all blocked in committee.  God knows how many others would have been blocked but were not nominated after Arlene Specter said that Democrats would not act on Bush nominees during the (lame duck) session of the 109th Congress.

 

As this isn't related to the current election, I'll end this discussion here.

I mean, this is hilariously inaccurate. Estrada absolutely made it out of committee, he just failed to pass the cloture vote, and let's not let anyone forget that he blatantly lied several times during his Senate hearing. Peter Keisler (dude, spell the guy's name right) didn't make it out of committee, but it was a Republican lead committee (later yes, a Democratic lead committee also didn't act on his nomination, but that doesn't matter since Republicans also didn't act on him). Conrad was blocked, but it was a seat that had been vacant since 1994 (i.e. Republicans kept blocking Clinton's nominations). Matthews is the only one you can make a honest complaint about. And let's not forget, these guys were super right wing, but hey, only liberals can be judicial activists while conservative judges are merely patriotic Americans who are the only true lovers on the Constitution. 

Also, cute of you to leave Harriet Miers' name of your list of aggrieved Republican judicial nominees. 

[Tempra]

39 minutes ago, LongRider said:

The birther shit is based in racism, the selected shit was based on the Supreme Court decision.  Very different.  The obstructionism towards Obama is racism based, the antipathy towards Bush was not raced based.  Trying to tell me they are the same is very unconvincing.

Ok? I never argued that "selected not elected" stemmed from race based animus.  The question is whether some democrats and Republicans have taken positions that call into question the eligibility of the president to serve in office.  Undeniably both parties have done so.  You can argue the birther conspiracy was worse than the "selected not elected" shit.  I'd probably agree. The other stuff Dante mention amounted to little more than partisan bickering and did not delegitimize the president.

 

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I mean, this is hilariously inaccurate. Estrada absolutely made it out of committee, he just failed to pass the cloture vote, and let's not let anyone forget that he blatantly lied several times during his Senate hearing. Peter Keisler (dude, spell the guy's name right) didn't make it out of committee, but it was a Republican lead committee (later yes, a Democratic lead committee also didn't act on his nomination, but that doesn't matter since Republicans also didn't act on him). Conrad was blocked, but it was a seat that had been vacant since 1994 (i.e. Republicans kept blocking Clinton's nominations). Matthews is the only one you can make a honest complaint about. And let's not forget, these guys were super right wing, but hey, only liberals can be judicial activists while conservative judges are merely patriotic Americans who are the only true lovers on the Constitution. 

Also, cute of you to leave Harriet Miers' name of your list of aggrieved Republican judicial nominees. 

As I earlier said that I would drop this issue for being off topic, I'll respond only to concede that I misspoke about Estrada.  I intended to have a a different comment about him having the dubious distinction of being the first court of appeals nominee to be successfully filibustered,  which we now know was, at least partially, race based to keep Estrada from later ascending to SCOTUS as the first Hispanic justice.  In my haste, I lumped him into a group of nominees blocked in committee.  My bad.

[Fez]

This seems surprisingly off message for Trump.

Quote

 

Donald Trump seemed relatively unperturbed at the thought of losing the presidential election in a Thursday interview with CNBC, saying he’ll just take a “very nice, long vacation” if he does.

Asked how Trump’s new charge that President Barack Obama “founded ISIS” would go over with voters in battleground states, the Republican nominee said he had no intention of toning down his rhetoric to placate voters.

“Look, all I do is tell the truth. I’m a truth-teller,” he said. “All I do is tell the truth, and if at the end of 90 days I fall in short because I’m somewhat politically correct [sic] even though I’m supposed to be the smart one and even though I’m supposed to have a lot of good ideas, it’s okay.”

“I go back to a very good way of life,” Trump said. “It’s not what I’m looking to do. I think we’re going to have a victory. But we’ll see.”

 

I can't tell if this is what he actually thinks, and the "rigged" talk is a very stupid attempt to fire up his supporters; or if he believes the "rigged" stuff and this is an attempt to convince CNBC viewers that he's not actually crazy.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, Tempra said:

As I earlier said that I would drop this issue for being off topic, I'll respond only to concede that I misspoke about Estrada.  I intended to have a a different comment about him having the dubious distinction of being the first court of appeals nominee to be successfully filibustered,  which we now know was, at least partially, race based to keep Estrada from later ascending to SCOTUS as the first Hispanic justice.  In my haste, I lumped him into a group of nominees blocked in committee.  My bad.

That simply isn't true. It's just another empty Republican talking point.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2003/02/miguel_ma_belle.html

[TheKitttenGuard]

2 minutes ago, Tempra said:

Ok? I never argued that "selected not elected" stemmed from race based animus.  The question is whether some democrats and Republicans have taken positions that call into question the eligibility of the president to serve in office.  Undeniably both parties have done so.  You can argue the birther conspiracy was worse than "selected not elected" shit.  I'd probably agree. The other stuff Dante mention amounted to little more than partisan bickering and did not delegitimize the presidency.

 

As I earlier said that I would drop this issue for being off topic, I'll respond only to concede that I misspoke about Estrada.  I intended to have a a different comment about him having the dubious distinction of being the first court of appeals nominee to be successfully filibustered,  which we now know was, at least partially, race based to keep Estrada from later ascending to SCOTUS as the first Hispanic justice.  In my haste, I lumped him into a group of nominees blocked in committee.  My bad.

Donald Trump is the most prominent Birther and is now the Republican Nominee. Did the Democratic Party nominate the most prominent selected not elected person? 

Many people on this board expressed some unease of some of the actions from the Democrats with Bush and there been some real discussion on it.  

The above is why I get so annoyed of this line of arguement.  People who do think there were issue with the Democrats also see unprecedented obstruction and get lectured about it.  How about realize this is unprecedented obstruction from the Republicans.

I get concern of an Echoing Chamber, and the 90% bigot post is great to drive a wedge but the fact is Donald Trump, a Birther, who campaign was launched on a Racist idea is the Republican Nominee for President of the United States.  

 

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Can we agree that obstructionism, from both sides, sucks without falling into nitpicking debates over who's was "worse"?

[DanteGabriel]

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Can we agree that obstructionism, from both sides, sucks without falling into nitpicking debates over who's was "worse"?

Since the current Republican nominee is already proclaiming that he'll be victimized by a rigged election (he should know, since his campaign manager is a veteran dictator-enabler), there's going to be a lot more talk about legitimacy. And if Clinton does win, we'll never hear the end of Republican whining about phantom vote fraud and there will certainly be continued obstruction. With a heaping helping of out and out misogyny to replace the dog whistle racism of the past eight years.

[TheKitttenGuard]

38 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Can we agree that obstructionism, from both sides, sucks without falling into nitpicking debates over who's was "worse"?

Obstructionism is an extreme tactic and should be used when it is a most dire circumstance with foresight to want to avoid it further use. 

It is probably a highly subjective statement to make.  I do think that is why it will be good to have a level of nuance.  

I do think there were problematic moments in the Democratic Party strategy and tactics that went to the line. It is still true that the Republican Party went far over the line and have made Obstructionism a common tactic with intent to use it every time.

People within the Democratic spoke of Selection and not Election.  The Republican Party nominated the Birther.

 

[Shryke]

Time had a cover-story on Trump's amazing post-DNC meltdown.

It gave us this gift:

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

8 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

It's funny how all the tap-dancing around Trump and his comments and views mirrors the 50 years of tap-dancing by the Republican Party around the Southern Strategy and coded racism.

Trump's not a racist, despite his various comments. We know this because he says he's not a racist and that latinos love him. He can only be a racist if he comes out in a KKK robe and shouts that he's a racist, or some equally obvious act. anything short of that it's fine and he's not a racist, as long as he continues to insist he is not one.

Trump is not trampling on our political norms against inciting violence and respecting the results of democratic elections. we know this, because he would deny he was doing anything like that. As long as he doesn't out right tell his followers to take up arms in the event he loses the election, or some equally extreme act/rhetoric, then Trump is not violating our political norms. As long as he continues to deny it, we should believe him.

I should be happy that prospects look very good for the Democratic party this year. But I'm deeply depressed by this election, and it has nothing to do with Clinton. Trump is deeply un-American. I fear the long term damage he may have on our country. I would have preferred a Rubio or Cruz victory and a Democratic party loss to what our country is being put through.

 

 

I fear what Ted Cruz could have done to this country, from the Oval office, even more than Trump concerns me. Cruz seems like a Dominionist (or Dominionist sympathizer) that would have actively worked to make all nonChristians 2nd class citizens. We may as well elect some fraud like Benny Hinn. Cruz is the one that comes wrapped in the flag and would actually work at harming the country. Trumps a noisy, opportunist, airbag, that I doubt even believes his own bullshit. Ones a farce, while the other as a true believer (partaker of the Kool Aid)  seems more dangerous?

Collectively this cycles Republican candidates has to be the worst group of choices theyve ever put forward in the Presidential primaries. A rather stunning collection of dirtbags in 2016.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I fear what Ted Cruz could have done to this country, from the Oval office, even more than Trump concerns me. Cruz seems like a Dominionist (or Dominionist sympathizer) that would have actively worked to make all nonChristians 2nd class citizens. We may as well elect some fraud like Benny Hinn. Cruz is the one that comes wrapped in the flag and would actually work at harming the country. Trumps a noisy, opportunist, airbag, that I doubt even believes his own bullshit. Ones a farce, while the other as a true believer (partaker of the Kool Aid)  seems more dangerous?

Collectively this cycles Republican candidates has to be the worst group of choices theyve ever put forward in the Presidential primaries. A rather stunning collection of dirtbags in 2016.

DWS,

Agreed.  

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I fear what Ted Cruz could have done to this country, from the Oval office, even more than Trump concerns me. Cruz seems like a Dominionist (or Dominionist sympathizer) that would have actively worked to make all nonChristians 2nd class citizens. We may as well elect some fraud like Benny Hinn. Cruz is the one that comes wrapped in the flag and would actually work at harming the country. Trumps a noisy, opportunist, airbag, that I doubt even believes his own bullshit. Ones a farce, while the other as a true believer (partaker of the Kool Aid)  seems more dangerous?

Collectively this cycles Republican candidates has to be the worst group of choices theyve ever put forward in the Presidential primaries. A rather stunning collection of dirtbags in 2016.

I used to think Cruz would be worse than Trump, but I haven't in a while. As horrible as a President Cruz would be on nearly all matters of policy, I believe he would respect democratic norms and the rule of law; i.e. that he would abide by court orders, even as he loudly complained about them. And I believe Cruz would not actually do anything too drastic on foreign policy (domestic policy would be a nightmare though). 

Whereas I don't believe either of those things about Trump. And I think Trump would be almost as bad on domestic policy anyway; since other than on maybe one or two issues that he personally cares about (for example, he seems to like trains a lot) he'd probably sign whatever legislation Pence, Ryan, and McConnell give to him.