2016 Presidential Elections Vote-All

It's the name of the new P&C.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

They will be. One of the things I guess I've learned from Soon-To-Be-Old P&C is that a lot of what is said is geared towards the specific discussion at hand. It's not meant to be taken as any sort of consistent ideological set of principles. It's whatever sounds best in the moment. Anything beyond that is just a thought experiment.

I'm the opposite. To me, this is a place to develop and challenge my own belief system, as a system. Constantly advocating different, contradictory things is essentially trolling, because there is no consistency. Without consistency, there's no investment in the discussion; no one can predict a person's positions or challenge their beliefs. For a politics and controversy group, that's just introducing noise.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

It's the name of the new P&C.

Well done, sir. Quite fitting. Reminiscent of a "wretched hive of scum and villainy."

Robear wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

They will be. One of the things I guess I've learned from Soon-To-Be-Old P&C is that a lot of what is said is geared towards the specific discussion at hand. It's not meant to be taken as any sort of consistent ideological set of principles. It's whatever sounds best in the moment. Anything beyond that is just a thought experiment.

I'm the opposite. To me, this is a place to develop and challenge my own belief system, as a system. Constantly advocating different, contradictory things is essentially trolling, because there is no consistency. Without consistency, there's no investment in the discussion; no one can predict a person's positions or challenge their beliefs. For a politics and controversy group, that's just introducing noise.

I used to be the opposite once, until I took a...eh, old joke is old.

The consistency is in trying to make the world a better place. The consistency is in the realness of the feelings of the people. That's the investment in the discussion: the skin in the game. And maybe that's the most real investment of them all.

I don't see the comparison between Mitt's 47% comment and the "basket of deplorables". Romney's comment was provably false, and Clinton's comment is certainly not based on any scientific fact, but it aligns very directly with the people and causes Trump is obviously and directly going for. It's one of those things that might be true but people just don't want to hear it - which is why Trump probably got all pissed about it. Hillary actually did what he's been pretending to do this whole time.

I'm disappointed Clinton walked the comment back.

When I read the statement I was hoping she was going to say 'I said half, but it's actually closer to two thirds' which would make it more accurate.

Couldn't Clinton say she was obviously being sarcastic with that comment?

It's pretty well documented that there is some significant number of Trump supporters like she was describing, that's more than one lone extremist and less than all of them. And everyone now pounces on her because she used the wrong fraction?

Meanwhile, Trump enjoys constantly spouting constant provable falsehoods and doubling down on what he said when confronted with the facts.

Man, if any future politicians manage to duplicate Trump's strategy of saturating the news with outrageous statements and shady stuff to the point where it all turns into background noise, elections are going to get incredibly ugly and disappointing.

This is all part of the trope of the strong man. He doesn't have to be *correct*, he just has to be *forceful*. Strong enough to protect his followers and strike fear in the hearts of lesser people who are, in the last reckoning, just the sheep of society anyway.

What does the truth matter when you're finally strong enough to put a boot in the face of the country?

Robear wrote:

What does the truth matter when you're finally strong enough to put a boot in the face of the country?

- forever.

(I assume that Robear was making the reference deliberately)

Hillary Clinton’s health just became a real issue in the presidential campaign

This might not affect her a ton, but it really feeds into Trump's campaign. I really hope it doesn't happen during one of the debates.

She is acting like she does not really want to win!
Sigh, Trump is going to win this, isn't he.

Shadout wrote:

Sigh, Trump is going to win this, isn't he.

Just when I get enthusiastic about the idea of 4-to-8 years of stability under Clinton...yeah.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Hillary Clinton’s health just became a real issue in the presidential campaign

This might not affect her a ton, but it really feeds into Trump's campaign. I really hope it doesn't happen during one of the debates.

This narrative has been building in the darker corners of the Internet for a long time, and I've mostly dismissed it up to now - but as the article suggests, an event like this lends some credibility to the more troublesome rumors that have been circulating on fringe sites. A conspiratorial clock is right twice a day...

Let's face it, Clinton and Trump are both old enough that their health is a real concern, which is just one more reason that they're terrible candidates. It wouldn't be shocking to find out that one or both of them are falling apart.

Does it really matter though. If she did end up sick during the presidency and unable to perform her job, the VP would take over, and still be endlessly better than Trump.
It matters for the media coverage, and will likely hurt her chances, which seem to be the only real problem that might come from this.

Shadout wrote:

Does it really matter though. If she did end up sick during the presidency and unable to perform her job, the VP would take over, and still be endlessly better than Trump *
It matters for the media coverage, and will likely hurt her chances, which seem to be the only real problem that might come from this.

*or Pence.

And after Pence, le deluge!