US politics: Heil to the Chief :(

[Castel]

3 hours ago, Prince of the North said:

So...will tax records of candidates ever again be an issue in presidential campaigns or did Trump effectively eliminate that being a thing?

If it's a passable candidate? Probably not. The media has no enforcement power in this regard apparently and Trump is helping tanking their credibility amongst Republicans (down to like 14% this year)  and we've already seen that you can get away with it in a primary after which partisans will tolerate anything.

Clinton must be kicking herself that she was born a generation early. She could have avoided releasing anything and avoided being harangued about who she took money from. 

[TrackerNeil]

1 minute ago, Castel said:

Clinton must be kicking herself that she was born a generation early. She could have avoided releasing anything and avoided being harangued about who she took money from. 

No, she couldn't. That pesky lack of a "Y" chromosome ensured that she was called on everything for which Trump got a pass.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Ser Scot, it is duly noted that you expected that Republican voters were small-minded and tolerant of a white nationalist bully. Feel better?

Edited to add: And who cares if you were right? Shryke is Canadian and I am not a Republican, so neither of us could have affected that primary, anyway, so what does it matter, except to your sense of being-rightness?

It bothered me that you guys were jumping up and down with the prospect of a crappy Republican Candidate.  It was so small minded.  I really hoped, going forward, both parties would pick people that can be supported with gusto.  Instead we've been shown that creepers like Trump can win.  

[IheartIheartTesla]

Its too early to talk about 2020.

First, the run-off in Louisiana, which I presume the Democrats will lose. Then the 2018 mid-terms (and some state-level stuff). Then, maybe a year after that, you have to look at the landscape and nominate the worst candidate anyways. 

[TrackerNeil]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It bothered me that you guys were jumping up and down with the prospect of a crappy Republican Candidate.  It was so small minded.  I really hoped, going forward, both parties pick people that can be supported with gusto.  Instead we've been shown that creepers like Trump can win.  

The GOP nominated a terrible man and I'm small-minded? I'm glad you've diagnosed the problem with 2016. Next time, however, you may be sure that I will refrain from doing nothing to affect the Republican primary and behave in a way that you find more palatable but is equally irrelevant to whom the GOP puts on their ticket.

[Jaxom 1974]

If I have to see another meme calling Julian Asian get a actual journalist...I may just go on a murder spree...

[Fez]

1 minute ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Its too early to talk about 2020.

First, the run-off in Louisiana, which I presume the Democrats will lose. Then the 2018 mid-terms (and some state-level stuff). Then, maybe a year after that, you have to look at the landscape and nominate the worst candidate anyways. 

Don't forget about the New Jersey and Virginia governor and state legislative races in 2017. I expect Democrats to pretty easily recapture the New Jersey mansion and that general assembly is completely safe for Democrats. The Virginia race could be tight. Democrats have won every statewide race in Virginia the past four years, and all the even-year state-wides elections since 2006. But they've been pretty close anytime Obama wasn't on the ballot and the Republican sweep in 2009 wasn't that long ago. So that'll be competitive. As for the legislature, only the state assembly is up next year, and that's the one Republicans have a super-majority in, so that's not flipping (the senate is super close, but its not up again until 2019).

[Castel]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It bothered me that you guys were jumping up and down with the prospect of a crappy Republican Candidate.  It was so small minded.  I really hoped, going forward, both parties would pick people that can be supported with gusto.  Instead we've been shown that creepers like Trump can win.  

Maybe the 14 million Republicans shouldn't have voted for Trump then? If they want to show themselves as preferring that sort of candidate why should someone not wish that they be hobbled for it?

Sure, wanting Trump to win was shown to be unwise but isn't it amazing how everything somehow goes back to some liberal's fault? It's almost as if people have given up on holding one group accountable so they swing extra hard to the other. 

[MerenthaClone]

45 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Or maybe, just maybe, the people who opposed him will admit that most of Trump's supporters understood that many of his campaign promises were completely nonsensical and voted for him simply because they wanted change or somebody to at least make a show of appealing to them or any number of other reasons.

So they're...egotistical idiots who'd rather be meaninglessly pandered to instead of actually benefited?  Uh, okay. If you think that's somehow better, go with it.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Castel said:

Maybe the 14 million Republicans shouldn't have voted for Trump then? If they want to show themselves as preferring that sort of candidate why should someone not wish that they be hobbled for it?

Sure, wanting Trump to win was shown to be unwise but isn't it amazing how everything somehow goes back to some liberal's fault? It's almost as if people have given up on holding one group accountable so they swing extra hard to the other. 

I really wish they hadn't.

It's not your fault.  It just... why would you cheer for someone who is genuinely bad for the Country who, by virtue of his nomination has a real possibility of being in a position to harm the nation if elected?  That "win at all costs" attitude is terrible in my opinion.  I would much rather that Sec. Clinton had won the election.  I don't care for all her policies but she wasn't eating a giant slice of crazy pie.  

How you react if the Democrats really did nominate Kanye West for President in 2020 while Republican's cackle with glee that he has been nominated?

[TrackerNeil]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How you react if the Democrats really did nominate Kanye West for President in 2020?

I certainly wouldn't blame Republicans who laughed about it.

[Rippounet]

On a sidenote... Is anybody else slightly freaking out about the fact that if Trump doesn't turn around on climate change his policies could (directly or indirectly) make the earth uninhabitable by the end of the century? Has this been discussed to death already, or does it seem so depressing that no one wants to dwell on it?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

You didn't laugh.  You were excited by the prospect and if you recall I said I would remind you if Trump won the whole shebang.

All we can hope for now is the turmoil faithless electors would cause.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Yes, we've talked about it (a little).

The somewhat silver lining is that a lot of companies (not named Exxon) have sustainability goals in place that hopefully wont be too derailed by what the government does or does not mandate. Unfortunately, and I have no data available to know if this is true or not, they may not be the majority of most companies in terms of carbon footprints.

The other thing to note is, the US is not in a vacuum here, and I'd be fully supportive if all other nations on the world slapped a carbon tax on US exports as a way of forcing Trump's handd.

Then again, we don't know what he really thinks about climate change, maybe we can get Obama to talk to him last before he sits down to decide on Paris. Basically I am looking for the best case scenario here.

[TrackerNeil]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tracker,

You didn't laugh.  You were excited by the prospect and if you recall I said I would remind you if Trump won the whole shebang.

I am so reminded, if that makes you feel better.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

I am so reminded, if that makes you feel better.

Not even a little bit.  I really wish I had been wrong.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I warned you about Trump when you and Shryke were gleeful that he was winning on the Republican side.  I warned you.

You also told us you'd vote libertarian, and were totally cool with the notion that a guy who couldn't name a foreign leader and didn't know what Aleppo was could be the next POTUS. Might step off that high horse a tad.

[Mudguard]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

I imagine that many Democrats will be leery of backing another female nominee in 2020, because she'll be "unlikable" and "flawed" and all of those other freighted terms that were applied to Hillary Clinton. 

Clinton wasn't unlikable and flawed because she was female, as you are implying.  She was unlikable and flawed based on her own stupid decisions, like setting up her own private email server, getting paid millions by Wall St. firms like Goldman Sachs for her speeches and then claiming that she's going to be tough on Wall Street, and colluding with the DNC to rig the primaries.  Clinton was a horrendous candidate for many reasons, none of which have anything to do with her gender.  

I don't think Democrats will have any problems nominating a female candidate in 2020, if a good female candidate enters the race.

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Yes, we've talked about it (a little).

The somewhat silver lining is that a lot of companies (not named Exxon) have sustainability goals in place that hopefully wont be too derailed by what the government does or does not mandate. Unfortunately, and I have no data available to know if this is true or not, they may not be the majority of most companies in terms of carbon footprints.

The other thing to note is, the US is not in a vacuum here, and I'd be fully supportive if all other nations on the world slapped a carbon tax on US exports as a way of forcing Trump's handd.

Then again, we don't know what he really thinks about climate change, maybe we can get Obama to talk to him last before he sits down to decide on Paris. Basically I am looking for the best case scenario here.

And the other, other good news is that while the US might back away from their goals, the US has already hit some major benchmarks in carbon production and done so early, and the rest of the world is fully and happily behind the Paris agreements and may consider hitting the US back if they don't acquiesce to the goals. Furthermore, China looks like they're quite serious on emissions and climate change (thanks, Obama) and they may end up being world leaders in the area. 

Basically, much like abandoning the TPP, shrinking back from the middle east, banning immigration and free trade agreements, the optimist in me sees this as another way in which the US is going to stop being the world leader.

[TrackerNeil]

3 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Clinton wasn't unlikable and flawed because she was female, as you are implying.  She was unlikable and flawed based on her own stupid decisions, like setting up her own private email server, getting paid millions by Wall St. firms like Goldman Sachs for her speeches and then claiming that she's going to be tough on Wall Street, and colluding with the DNC to rig the primaries.  Clinton was a horrendous candidate for many reasons, none of which have anything to do with her gender.  

I don't think Democrats will have any problems nominating a female candidate in 2020, if a good female candidate enters the race.

I seem to recall that, Elizabeth Warren, darling of the Sanders set, got the Hillary treatment when she was running for Senate. She was called a "schoolmarm" for being knowledgeable for example, where Paul Ryan was "a numbers guy." And Clinton was very popular before she started running for office. So I don't buy that she was an especially flawed candidate, but she was certainly perceived that way.