U.S. Elections 2016: It's Not A Lie, If YOU Believe It

[Shryke]

The Press so far actually seems to be pissed at Trump over this whole thing. I would bet mostly though because he claimed he was holding a press-conference but mostly used the coverage to advertise his new DC hotel. So now they seem to be calling him a liar on the birther issue (where, you know, he's 100% lying and trying to gaslight the entire US).

Of course, the AP headlines on twitter are still trying to carry water for Trump and the NYT report I've seen on the announcement is pretty shitty but you basically expect that at this point.

 

Anyway, I'm hoping this gives a chance for Obama to weight in on the issue and slam Trump because the press hates him alot less then they hate Clinton.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, maarsen said:

Me. Slowly but surely,  one post at a time.  Bwahahah!!

Can you beat Donald Trump? Do you have opposable thumbs? Then you've got my vote.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, maarsen said:

Me. Slowly but surely,  one post at a time.  Bwahahah!!

I believe an unavoidable difficulty with representative democracy is that we give power to people who want power.  Power corrupts.

[S John]

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I know, right? It cracks me up when I hear someone criticize Obama or Clinton or whomever for having a big ego. What retiring, modest person tries to become the leader of the free world?

Seriously.  An extremely high pressure 24hrs a day, 7 day a week job, where you'll have next to no privacy, where people's lives and quality of life literally ride on just about every decision that you make, AND no matter how great you are at your job half the country is going to hate you no matter what.  And half of your own government is going to try to impede everything that you do, even if it is a good idea... just because.  

No fuckin' thanks!  

Being VP is where its at.  But the head job has got to be a nightmare a lot of the time.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

The most infuriating aspect of this new Birther episode is Trump bragging he got Obama getting to release his B.C. No one feels to state Obama did not need to release it and point to the Implicit Racism of the statement.

 Just the fact that he would brag about bringing about a circumstance that proved him to be wrong tells you how much of a delusional asshole this guy is. It would be like a poker player calling another player's bluff by pushing all in, then losing his stake after it turns out not to be a bluff. And then turning around and bragging about it. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, S John said:

Seriously.  An extremely high pressure 24hrs a day, 7 day a week job, where you'll have next to no privacy, where people's lives and quality of life literally ride on just about every decision that you make, AND no matter how great you are at your job half the country is going to hate you no matter what.  And half of your own government is going to try to impede everything that you do, even if it is a good idea... just because.  

No fuckin' thanks!  

Being VP is where its at.  But the head job has got to be a nightmare a lot of the time.

As I said above a difficulty with representative democracy is that we give power to people who want power.  That always turna out well.

[TrackerNeil]

4 minutes ago, S John said:

Seriously.  An extremely high pressure 24hrs a day, 7 day a week job, where you'll have next to no privacy, where people's lives and quality of life literally ride on just about every decision that you make, AND no matter how great you are at your job half the country is going to hate you no matter what.  And half of your own government is going to try to impede everything that you do, even if it is a good idea... just because.  

No fuckin' thanks!  

Being VP is where its at.  But the head job has got to be a nightmare a lot of the time.

Honestly, I have a good deal of sympathy for politicians in general. It's a job that is extremely difficult to get or keep, and at which you never know if you've failed until you've already been fired. It's hard to know what is expected of you, half your constituents hate you, and 75% of them think you're corrupt no matter what you do. Little wonder the folks we elect get a bit squirrelly sometimes.

[S John]

5 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Honestly, I have a good deal of sympathy for politicians in general. It's a job that is extremely difficult to get or keep, and at which you never know if you've failed until you've already been fired. It's hard to know what is expected of you, half your constituents hate you, and 75% of them think you're corrupt no matter what you do. Little wonder the folks we elect get a bit squirrelly sometimes.

And you get blamed for a good deal of crap you had nothing to do with.  I've too have always been a bit sympathetic toward the executive.  Even George W. (at times).  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Honestly, I have a good deal of sympathy for politicians in general. It's a job that is extremely difficult to get or keep, and at which you never know if you've failed until you've already been fired. It's hard to know what is expected of you, half your constituents hate you, and 75% of them think you're corrupt no matter what you do. Little wonder the folks we elect get a bit squirrelly sometimes.

Exactly, who would want the job who isn't a priori suspect.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

As I said above a difficulty with representative democracy is that we give power to people who want power.  That always turna out well.

That's a problem with most forms of government.

The opposite is a problem too. If you've ever studied history, you'll find that making someone who doesn't want to rule King or Emperor can be disastrous.

[Shryke]

20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

As I said above a difficulty with representative democracy is that we give power to people who want power.  That always turna out well.

It frequently does actually.

There does not seem any reason why people who don't want power would be better at running things.

[Shryke]

19 minutes ago, S John said:

And you get blamed for a good deal of crap you had nothing to do with.  I've too have always been a bit sympathetic toward the executive.  Even George W. (at times).  

Congress gets off with no blame for like fucking EVERYTHING.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Lulz. Will be fun to see how this plays out. 

[Fez]

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Exactly, who would want the job who isn't a priori suspect.

We've had very few Presidents who sought the office specifically to enrich themselves or for the sake of the power itself. Even the terrible Presidents, like W., sought the office because they had a specific vision of America that they thought would be best for the country and that they were the ones to implement it. Some Presidents did allow large amounts of corruption to occur, but that was usually a combination of 1) Not hiring the right staff and not giving them proper oversight or guidance and 2) A philosophical objection to many forms of government regulations; including regulations that can prevent regulatory capture. Most of the Presidents who did very corrupt administrations, like Grant, were not themselves involved in it, or likely were even fully aware of what was going on.

The only Presidents that really were after the power and/or self-enrichment I think were: Nixon, Harding, and Hayes. Although I admit to being hazy on some of the lesser 19th century Presidents. And even Nixon is a bit of an edge case. He clearly was paranoid and wanted power over basically everyone, but at least he also had legitimate policy reasons for wanting to be President. He had a specific vision of America, especially its foreign policy, and thought it would improve the country.

Point is, I generally don't mistrust the motives of the major party nominees for President, since we have so little precedent for a President who wanted anything other than to enact their vision of what they thought was best for the country. Naturally, I strong disagree with that vision in many cases, but that's a question of policy, not motivation.

Which just goes to show how much of an anomaly Trump is, who clearly is seeking the Presidency simply to enrich himself and to enjoy the benefits of the office.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

53 minutes ago, S John said:

Being VP is where its at.  But the head job has got to be a nightmare a lot of the time.

So in other words, you'd rather be Ryan Mallett instead of being Tom Brady? 

[TrackerNeil]

40 minutes ago, Shryke said:

It frequently does actually.

There does not seem any reason why people who don't want power would be better at running things.

I agree; in fact, I suspect that those without ambition would do a significantly worse job, because they're not concerned about the next steps in their career. We see this with Donald Trump, at least in a limited way. The man is an egoistic bully, but he is not at all moved by normal political incentives because he has no political future beyond this race. That means he can say anything, light fires, piss all over his party, whatever.

22 minutes ago, Fez said:

We've had very few Presidents who sought the office specifically to enrich themselves or for the sake of the power itself. Even the terrible Presidents, like W., sought the office because they had a specific vision of America that they thought would be best for the country and that they were the ones to implement it. Some Presidents did allow large amounts of corruption to occur, but that was usually a combination of 1) Not hiring the right staff and not giving them proper oversight or guidance and 2) A philosophical objection to many forms of government regulations; including regulations that can prevent regulatory capture. Most of the Presidents who did very corrupt administrations, like Grant, were not themselves involved in it, or likely were even fully aware of what was going on.

Point is, I generally don't mistrust the motives of the major party nominees for President, since we have so little precedent for a President who wanted anything other than to enact their vision of what they thought was best for the country. Naturally, I strong disagree with that vision in many cases, but that's a question of policy, not motivation.

Which just goes to show how much of an anomaly Trump is, who clearly is seeking the Presidency simply to enrich himself and to enjoy the benefits of the office.

I want to highlight this post (which I condensed a bit) for being spot-on. I think Americans have this idea that anyone who holds elective office is corrupt, without really knowing what that means except "bad-intentioned." Very few people are both in a position to run for president and are inclined to do so just to satisfy some aberrant dominant urge, or to fill their pockets. In this, as in many other things, Donald Trump is an anomaly.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

The Press so far actually seems to be pissed at Trump over this whole thing. I would bet mostly though because he claimed he was holding a press-conference but mostly used the coverage to advertise his new DC hotel. So now they seem to be calling him a liar on the birther issue (where, you know, he's 100% lying and trying to gaslight the entire US).

Of course, the AP headlines on twitter are still trying to carry water for Trump and the NYT report I've seen on the announcement is pretty shitty but you basically expect that at this point.

 

Anyway, I'm hoping this gives a chance for Obama to weight in on the issue and slam Trump because the press hates him alot less then they hate Clinton.

Why would you doubt his integrity? I seen no reason for that.......

Quote

Mr. Trump’s aides began trying to argue that he had actually “ended” the birther issue in a statement late Thursday. Mr. Trump’s spokesman, Jason Miller, asserted — also falsely — that Mr. Trump had “obtained” Mr. Obama’s birth certificate, which the president released in 2011.

“Mr. Trump did a great service to the president and the country by bringing closure to the issue that Hillary Clinton and her team first raised,” Mr. Miller’s statement said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/donald-trump-birther-obama.html

[Ormond]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Who was the last candidate who didn't obviously want to be president?

Even in your thoughtful and well written explanation of sexism in politics, you fell victim to the phenomenon you were trying to explain.

I don't see where I was falling victim to sexism. I was just pointing it out. Of course almost everyone who runs for President wants to be President (perhaps Gerald Ford was somewhat of an exception.) The whole point of my post was that a woman is penalized in voters' minds for this when a man is not. 

[TrackerNeil]

I think Donald Trump does the political equivalent of Gish galloping; throws out so many lies that one could not possibly fact-check them all. By now, we're just numb from shameless and obvious untruths.

[mormont]

Still, having just watched him announce that 'Hillary Clinton and her campaign started the birther controversy: I finished it', in a tone of voice that simply oozed patronising disapproval for that lamentable business of the nasty old birther conspiracy: man, that takes the biscuit, even for Trump.