Print

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

[muldrake]

I don't see it as a rational thing, but it doesn't stop me from discussing it. They'd have to get it paid for first and other than that starter downpayment thing Trump did do, I don't see it getting paid for anytime soon.

The environmental and cultural mitigation survey thing is definetly going to delay it for quite a while, years probably. So, it'll be a while before it even gets started.

And yeah, I read somewhere of him saying that allies owe vast sums to NATO. It seems to be more of pandering to his base, even though it appears like backstabbing Merkel after meeting with her.

Pretty sure he was saying this kind of stuff back before he even ran for office? I don't remember it coming up during he's actual campaign, though I might of missed it in amongst the mass of other nonsense. I was wondering if/when it'd rear it's ugly head again.

He may not have said that word for word during the campaign, but he's definetly said things along the lines of that. Which is why I said it's just pandering to his base, even though it really does look like he's backstabbing Merkel.

IMO, when interpreting Trump actions, if you have a choice between thinking he's playing 4 dimensional chess and thinking he's just bungling his way into another failure, assuming he has no clue what he's doing is usually the safest option.

[Antioch]

How does that change anything about it being quite dubious to rank candidates on their ability to win the election?

I was very specifically limiting that qualification to the issue of candidacy and yes, if you win the election, by definition you are the best candidate, that being someone standing for election and then actually winning an election.

In a functioning democracy, that also has some loose connection to being actually good at the office.

(...)

That has to be some pretty darn loose connection. I seriously doubt Al Gore would have messed up the United States foreign affairs the way Bush did.

[muldrake]

How does that change anything about it being quite dubious to rank candidates on their ability to win the election?

I was very specifically limiting that qualification to the issue of candidacy and yes, if you win the election, by definition you are the best candidate, that being someone standing for election and then actually winning an election.

In a functioning democracy, that also has some loose connection to being actually good at the office.

(...)

That has to be some pretty darn loose connection. I seriously doubt Al Gore would have messed up the United States foreign affairs the way Bush did.

I was criticizing the functionality of our democracy in that comment.

I didn't vote for Al Gore, though.  I voted for Nader, for which I will never apologize.

[Frumple]

More persistently peddled lie than caricature, but I guess that works, too. FTFE, etc., etc.

Now I may be mistaken on this, I know the whole email thing wasn't a big deal, but I recall a quote from Hillary Clinton saying that she got confused about which email to use and that she didn't know how to use the email was her defense against the claims at first.  Despite whatever the actual explanation was. (If I understand correctly now it wasn't actually an unusual practice)  Was I misled about her explaining the emails away by essentially saying they were too complicated for her?  That's my biggest sticking point against her, that she supposedly pled innocent due to stupidity.

Can't seem to find reference to that particular claim, or I'd double check for yeh. Don't remember that bit come up during the mess, though. Closest to I can recall and find again at the moment is a bunch of stuff related to health claims, pretty much the entirety of which were exaggerations at best and wild fabrication more often. If y'had a more direct quote or source or whatev', might could manage something.

[PTTG??]

I am currently at a town hall in a "safe" red district.

Everyone here is an angry liberal.

The Republicans should be afraid.

[Sheb]

And yeah, I read somewhere of him saying that allies owe vast sums to NATO. It seems to be more of pandering to his base, even though it appears like backstabbing Merkel after meeting with her.

Pretty sure he was saying this kind of stuff back before he even ran for office? I don't remember it coming up during he's actual campaign, though I might of missed it in amongst the mass of other nonsense. I was wondering if/when it'd rear it's ugly head again.

Yup, but saying it that directly and arrogantly is not going to fly. Germans are already not on the whole a military bunch and convincing them to spend money of the army isn't going to be easy. Now any politicians who wants to raise defense might risk looking like he bent to Trump's will. With Trump being about as popular as your standard STD right now, it's now helping.

[muldrake]

I am currently at a town hall in a "safe" red district.

Everyone here is an angry liberal.

The Republicans should be afraid.

Politicians often mistake slightly favoring them over a repugnant alternative as being some kind of mandate for every crazy ass thing they believe.

[Starver]

Politicians often mistake slightly favoring them over a repugnant alternative as being some kind of mandate for every crazy ass thing they believe.

*cough*Brexit!*/cough*

[Frumple]

... does that even apply in this case? Brexit at least had a majority of voters for, for all it was a rather slim one, iirc. POTUS race was more like the for/against % had flipped but the parliament or whatever it is over there said they were leaving anyway, heh. Might fit more accurately if they actually do ultimately fail to leave, though.

Less applicable for local/state level stuff, I guess, which is more town halls-y. Course, that in itself is less true for many smaller/conservative areas. Town hall tends to matter less than local restaurant/bar/whatever. Even less than it normally does for politics, ha.

[Starver]

... does that even apply in this case? Brexit at least had a majority of voters for [NB: it was 37.4%], for all it was a rather slim one, iirc  [vs 34.7%]. POTUS race was more like the for/against % had flipped but the parliament or whatever it is over there said they were leaving anyway, heh. Might fit more accurately if they actually do ultimately fail to leave, though.

I was more talking about the habitual "an overwhelming majority of people voted for...", misapplied to this other-topic subject, as an example of taking a slight favouring (including "it won't matter, but I hate Cameron" votes) as an absolute mandate for whatever it is they think we actually, cumulatively, voted for.

But without wanting to intrude, so I thought I'd make it a short and snappy example that didn't need to be further discussed.  Meh.

(But, on topic, best information I can get suggests 26.2% of voters supported Clinton, 24.1% supported Trump.)

[PTTG??]

I'm talking about 90%+ liberals. It was amazing. They want single payer and they want action against climate change. And the rep didn't want to address either one. His big idea was biomass power.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Biomass, fucking hell. I sincerely hope the forefront of revolutionary thought is a bit better than "reuse all that organic waste we're just letting go for energy".

[Starver]

His big idea was biomass power.

So, he's actively asking people to riot?

[Neonivek]

I'm talking about 90%+ liberals. It was amazing. They want single payer and they want action against climate change. And the rep didn't want to address either one. His big idea was biomass power.

The problem with Voters in general...

Is that they want all the benefits but none of the costs.

"We will reduce taxes! and increase expenditures!"

"Where will the money come from?"

"We will balance the budget!"

"Oooooooohhh... Wait doesn't that mean you will cut programs?"

"Next question please!"

[PTTG??]

What the hell are you talking about?

Do you really think that Liberals thing single payer will just make money appear out of nowhere? Liberals are the only side that actually is willing to fund their decisions with taxes.

It's conservatives who want to decrease taxes AND increase military/wall/etc. spending.