Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

No, exact same question, Palin, Clinton and Fiorina. I wonder what your answer would be since you apparently disliked Graham's.

[wierd]

....

now you have me wanting to hurl, after imagining Merkel, Thatcher, and Reno.... in any order.

[RedKing]

No, exact same question, Palin, Clinton and Fiorina. I wonder what your answer would be since you apparently disliked Graham's.

It wasn't the order, it was the choices period. I'll grant that red-meat Republicans think Palin is a hottie, but she's not my type physically at all, her ideology and intelligence aside.
Fiorina and Hillary....jesus, I think I'd pick Rubio first. Marco's kinda cute in a "don't ask, don't tell" sort of way.

Nikki Haley is attractive, and seems to be at least just conservative and not crazy conservative.

There's Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) as well. And if we're not restricting it to US politicians, the Swiss have an MP named Christa Markwalder who has that "girl-next-canton" look...

[sluissa]

I think Graham had it about right. I'd still rather deal with a moderate republican on a day to day basis than Clinton. Not that Fiorina is all that moderate, but she's not as far right wing as some and still a preferable choice over Clinton any day.

But yeah, not my favored three choices if I had to choose 3 for that list. (Although the planet would be better off without Clinton in general.)

[Sheb]

Yeah, well it ain't Graham's fault if he was handed a shit platter.

[Willfor]

In what fucked up world is Clinton in any way worse than any of the Republican candidates that have been offered up so far? Like, I am serious at odds with this notion. I get that people might dislike her a little bit, but remember that if any of the Republican candidates win, they will control all three centers of American government, likely be able to appoint at least one Supreme Court member (who will be a far right wing candidate, likely a tea party one), and in general set America back even further. I think Clinton is by far the least of those two possible evils if Sanders can't win the nom. Like, think this fucking thing through, because other countries are counting on all y'all to turn out to keep Republicans out of office in the next election.

[smjjames]

Yeah, well it ain't Graham's fault if he was handed a shit platter.

He could have refused said shit platter.

Also, CNN breaking news! A NORAD blimp broke free of the tethers! *cry cry cry*! (/sarcasm in case nobody gets it)

If there wasn't the danger of an uncontrolled blimp to air traffic over Pennsylvania, I'd be like 'big freaking deal! So what that they lost control of it.' They're being a little too 'oh noes, the sky is falling!' over it IMO.

[RedKing]

I for one welcome our helium-filled overlords.

EDIT: @willfor, keep in mind this last bit of conversation was in the context of "fuck, marry, kill" not "Vote for".
I wouldn't want to share a bed with Hillary (neither did Bill, apparently) but I'll still likely hold my nose and vote for her.

DOUBLE-EDIT: Ok, I didn't realize at first that Graham had been presented with the set of choices. Urgh....yeah, it does get hard to argue with. Can I choose myself for the "kill"? 
And to be fair to Graham, he said he wouldn't make Clinton disappear, and that she'd make his list of drinking buddies. Of course, saying that he wouldn't kill Clinton probably just cost him half of his 1% support.

[sluissa]

To start with her personality and charisma just grates on me. I don't feel like she would make a good figurehead for the nation. One of the few things I do still like about Obama is that he's good at his speeches and can pull off being a relatable figure.

Clinton is nothing but dislikable to me and her time as Secretary of State hasn't given me much hope that she would be a good diplomat either.

Her positions are almost entirely determined by the voter climate at the time. It's hard to tell what exactly she is or isn't for because her "opinions" at the time are either a complete non-answer or whatever she feels that people want to hear.  I hated her answers during the last debate and thought she completely failed at the benghazi hearing. (Yeah, it was intended as a political hit, and she treated it like one, and I guess that's fair, but that means that nothing really got settled by it.) Granted, I didn't watch all 11 hours, but the clips that keep getting passed around by both sides of the media are really really distasteful. And it's painful to see the left hold it up as proof of her character and the right hold it up as proof of her guilt of something.

Then there's the whole Clinton/Bush Dynasty that's been controlling the country for a large chunk of the last 30 years. I don't want to see that continue, even if that's a little personal and not really based in logic. For the same reason I really don't want to see Jeb Bush in office either.

She's a career politican and it shows, and I don't like that. If Sanders doesn't make it past her I'll have to seriously consider voting third party or Republican because I don't think I can vote for her.


But yes, as RedKing says, I'd rather marry a republican than Clinton, but I'd also vote for a republican than clinton... if the republican weren't too crazy...

[RedKing]

if the republican weren't too crazy...

That seems to be the new Diogenes' lamp. Good luck with that one.

[sluissa]

if the republican weren't too crazy...

That seems to be the new Diogenes' lamp. Good luck with that one.

I'm not all that convinced Trump is crazy. I think he's playing his side against themselves. I don't think he'll make it to the general election, but I'd be really curious how his attitude turns around once he had the solid backing of a party and had to start working on those independent voters. I"m not saying i like that tactic, but it's interesting. I don't know enough about Carson to determine his sanity, but his sound bites sound calmer than the typical right side fire and brimstone yelling.

I've always found it interesting that a big factor in someone being electable is that they're likable. It's one of the main reasons why I think there was such a big push for Biden- he'd be a hell of a lot more likable than anyone else on the Democrat side running regardless of his actual political aptitude.

The problem is that likability does not make for political aptitude; they're entirely unrelated. The most charismatic leader can still manage to fuck up the country, just as the most unlikable leader can still accomplish a lot in office. The two things are almost entirely unrelated.

The thing is that the "President" doesn't have all that much power... likability and the ability to make deals is primarily how they lead. They have to get congress behind them to do much. They have to convince people their ideas are good ideas and they should run with them. Presidents can do a few things and are #1 at foreign relations. But overall, likability is a necessity as president.

[RedKing]

Yes, but in the era of mass media all democratic elections are popularity contests, not rational analysis of the leadership, aptitudes and policies of various candidates.

EDIT: @sluissa,
Umm....running to the base in the primary and then back to the center in the general is nothing new. The problem is that the GOP activist base is so far from the center that it's going to be a long trek back. And as for Carson, saying crazy shit in a calm voice doesn't make it any less crazy.

The President is supposed to be reliant on Congress to carry out their agenda, but with Congress in seemingly perpetual stasis, Obama has set a precedent for a more unilateral executive branch that is comfortable with using executive orders to bypass the legislature. I'm not thrilled about that precedent, but it was either that or get NOTHING done for the last seven years.

[RedKing]

And honestly, I can't see a single Republican candidate running right now not completely and utterly fucking up US foreign relations for years.

Meh...I think Pataki and maybe Kasich would be okay, though I haven't really familiarized myself with their foreign policy statements since I have a better chance of winning the nomination than they do.

[i2amroy]

The President is supposed to be reliant on Congress to carry out their agenda, but with Congress in seemingly perpetual stasis, Obama has set a precedent for a more unilateral executive branch that is comfortable with using executive orders to bypass the legislature. I'm not thrilled about that precedent, but it was either that or get NOTHING done for the last seven years.

That precedent goes back a lot farther than Obama, all of the way back to Franklin Roosevelt and his inordinate amount of executive orders. Since then you'd be hard pressed to find presidents, either Republican or Democrat, that didn't at least attempt one run-around with an executive order.

[RedKing]

The President is supposed to be reliant on Congress to carry out their agenda, but with Congress in seemingly perpetual stasis, Obama has set a precedent for a more unilateral executive branch that is comfortable with using executive orders to bypass the legislature. I'm not thrilled about that precedent, but it was either that or get NOTHING done for the last seven years.

That precedent goes back a lot farther than Obama, all of the way back to Franklin Roosevelt and his inordinate amount of executive orders. Since then you'd be hard pressed to find presidents, either Republican or Democrat, that didn't at least attempt one run-around with an executive order.

FDR's sort of a special case because of the war. But point taken. Obama actually has less executive orders on the books than Dubya or Clinton or Reagan.