US Elections 2016: Why we can't have nice things

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Yup - never have been a Kennedy fan, despite the martyrdom.  It was Lyndon Johnson who actually got things done.

It was Uncle Corn Pone that was the guy that really pushed for Civil Rights. And yes, he was an extraordinarily good politician, although a very flawed man.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Yup - never have been a Kennedy fan, despite the martyrdom.  It was Lyndon Johnson who actually got things done.

LBJ will never be someone I care for.  He was a bully who chose to ignore warnings about Vietnam.

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

LBJ will never be someone I care for.  He was a bully who chose to ignore warnings about Vietnam.

LBJ's legacy is perhaps the most complicated of any American President.  He did a lot of good things, and he made a lot of mistakes. 

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

It was Uncle Corn Pone that was the guy that really pushed for Civil Rights. And yes, he was an extraordinarily good politician, although a very flawed man.

It's another good example of public vs. private feelings too. LBJ was a huge racist. But he was not willing to dictate policy based on that. 

[OldGimletEye]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's another good example of public vs. private feelings too. LBJ was a huge racist. But he was not willing to dictate policy based on that. 

Reading excerpts from Robert Caro's book, I'm not so sure about that. And yes I'm aware of his senate record in the 1950s and that used a lot of racially offensive terms.. Yeah he was racist, but considering his time, I'm not sure he was a "huge" one.

With respect to LBJ, for me he brings both feelings of admiration and loathing. He very much fits into GRRM's concept of people both Heros and Villians. I think LBJ fits into that very well. He is an extremely fascinating character.

Caro states the thing with LBJ was that 1) he was always driven by power, but 2) compassion for others was part of his character.

[Swordfish]

56 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

She's made mistakes, and has clear flaws as a politician. I don't love her and voted against her twice in primaries, but I don't think she's evil or particularly corrupt. Why the apocalyptic hatred for her? Do you really think she's THAT bad? Engage with that please.

I'm not sure there is as much universal 'Hilary is evil' out there as the narrative says there is.  At least, not significantly more so that there is against any candidate who is running against the candidate people support.  hell, there was just as much vitriol and hate from a lot of people directed at Bernie(including a ton from the left), and he has a fraction of her baggage.

I don't hate her.  I don't think she's evil.  But she has MAJOR issues.

The post you responded too is a great example.  All they were saying is they don't particularly like her, which is obviously SEXISM, but could hardly be considered hateful.

The fact is, for reasons legitimate and illegitimate, a whole lot of people just don't like her.  So why is she the candidate?

It's hard for me to imagine a scenario where anyone not named Clinton, given her favorability issues, her already losing in 2008, and all her baggage, gets the nod from the DNC in the way she has.

Unless you thin she's head and shoulders above the rest of the field, there's no other reason to shoehorn her in over other, less risky candidates, and if that's what you believe I have a bridge to sell you.  And that strikes a lot of people as symbolic, I think, of the same problems that have given rise to Trump.

So you have a candidate who's already lost once, badly, who the majority of America finds untrustworthy, who carries a ton of baggage, but who is essentially getting the nomination because the DNC decided a long time ago she was going to get it.

I find that completely unacceptable.  But YMMV.

 

 

 

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

3 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'm convinced it started with her introduction to the US electorate as a very non-traditional political wife who was confident and career-oriented. She offended people by saying she wouldn't bake cookies or "stand by my man like Tammy Wynette" and led to some extreme backlash. Political wives are supposed to smile and simper on the side, never say anything uncontroversial. Seriously, what First Ladies have ever gotten criticized so much by the public? Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama, two women who pursued ambitious careers.

Ever since Clinton's clumsy introduction to the national electorate, there's a broad swath of people who think everything she does is wrong. She's certainly made her share of mistakes along the way and she lacks the natural schmoozing ability that softened her husband's sins. The deck is also just stacked against a woman in general. The criticisms that she smiles too much or doesn't smile enough or she's too weak to take on Trump or she's too much of a ball buster or OMG she wears pantsuits speak to the challenges a woman faces in public life.

As a former Republican, a veteran, a woman, who was a typically ignorant voter, I couldn't stand the Clintons. While a part of me admired Hilary, a much bigger part thought she was a horrible person.  And in truth, it was all based on media perception, nothing of any real substance. (I think a lot of people my age were like this, but then changed as they got older/smarter. - - my age being the people who fall in gap between baby-boomers and Gen X)

People would rail against her, say she was the real power behind the throne, and that was one of the things that made me think more critically towards her (not negatively, but actually start analyzing her) and in the end found her "acceptable" even if she wasn't my first choice.

Now, my biggest problem with her now is that she is too hawkish, and not far enough left in some ways. But that is certainly a hell of a lot better than her opponent.