Nominations for stupidest political act of the year so far...

[Phi for All]

To recap - my argument against your initial post is simple; very few left-leaning liberals castigate people as racist for being right of centre - but the far-right is very happy to say to the disenfranchised "those liberal elites think you're an uneducated racist chav - vote for me" Those that lie have beaten those that tell the truth

 

To me, there's not much you can say about believing outright lies ("We'll be spending all the healthcare money we save on healthcare!" and "We'll make Mexico pay for the wall!"). For things you could check but don't, that's on you.

 

But far worse, imo, are the intractable perspectives that claim to be truth but are far from objective. We can't hope to solve the brand new problems that come along with a conservative mentality that disdains new solutions. Too many People won't even learn about alternatives so they can better judge them.

 

There are so many better ways that conservatives won't listen to. Like fair representation voting, one small change that would have so much beneficial effect on our political system. Or passing legislation making private schools illegal, so the wealthy and poor children have to learn together (which guarantees that public schools receive all the funding they deserve, and an ingrained respect for everyone's capabilities is developed). Or focusing on fair employment instead of just employment, so workers could have just the one job that helped them contribute to society in all ways, instead of two or three substandard jobs that just rob People of their will.

 

I know it's wrong, but I keep picturing People who identify as conservatives trying to feed themselves with a 4-foot fork. They keep insisting on trying to eat the regular way, while the liberals are feeding each other across the table.

[Delbert]

DrP (sorry quote not working)

 

America has chosen - just get on with it. The Sun came up, birds are singing. If he doesn't want to get kicked out in four years time he needs to do the right thing.

 

And as for the attributes you mention and your clear frustration, from my perspective I've had to endure 13 years with a warmongering lunatic and his psychopathic clunking-fist sidekick - and he was elected three times! Did I vent my spleen? No, I believe in democracy. As previously said: democracy is a terrible way to run a country, but better than all the others.

[waitforufo]

Nominations for stupidest political act of the year so far? How about nominating Hillary Clinton as the Democratic party presidential candidate. Sanders would have been a better candidate. Too bad Donna Brazile was feeding Hillary debate questions. Donna's debate cheating had to be the number two stupidest political act. Number three, Hillary calling Trump supporters Deplorables. All it did was fire them up. Number four, believing the pollsters. Pollsters never reach the silent majority. Number five, believing that Trump would be the easiest Republican contender for Hillary to beat. The liberal media literally thrust Trump into the Republican nomination. Joe and Jane six pack couldn't have been happier.

 

Hillary also caught an unlucky break. Janet "baby burner" Reno died on election eve. A stark reminder of our past Clinton presidency. That couldn't have helped in Florida where Reno was famous for prosecuting innocent people for child molestation. Florida's Hispanics also likely have a long memory about Elian Gonzalez.

[John Cuthber]

Frankly, I can't understand what all the fuss is about. The election of Trump was a democratic process involving the view of that organism called: The People.

 

And to infer (which seems to be the suggestion) that stupidity is involved can only be an insult to the American people.

 

Doubtless there'll be some making comments about unfairness of the electoral system. But whatever the system, such suggestions will always be from the losers.

Given the effect on the US economy All the voters are losers - whichever way they voted.

On the other hand I'm a "winner"

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/gbp-live-today/5706-pound-to-euro-and-dollar-pairs-unfold-key-chart-movement-higher

 

Edited November 9, 2016 by John Cuthber

[DrP]

https://www.facebook.com/JonathanPieReporter/videos/1044777035645189/

 

OK, the latest Johnathan Pie vid seems to echo my argument in a funnier and better way than I put it across Imat. Enjoy.

 

Quote Delbert: "America has chosen - just get on with it. The Sun came up, birds are singing. If he doesn't want to get kicked out in four years time he needs to do the right thing."

Did I write that 8 years ago? I agree with it - I hope all goes well and trust we'll all sort it out in the end.

[StringJunky]

Nominations for stupidest political act of the year so far? How about nominating Hillary Clinton as the Democratic party presidential candidate. ....

Perhaps not stupid but unwise, in retrospect. America had pushed the envelope with a black president and maybe wasn't ready to do it again with a woman at the helm at this stage in its history.

[MigL]

I really don't think it was the fact that she's a woman, Stringy.

The way the Democrats rigged the nomination is what 'soured' her to a lot of people ( well, OK, me ).

The Democrats showed themselves to be as self-serving as the Republicans, and so people voted for the anti-establishment candidate, the outsider, the 'wrench in the works' candidate if you will.

D Trump is not a Democrat, but he hasn't made too many Republican friends either ( except for the boot-lickers/ a*s-kissers ). He was simply seen by many, as the outsider who will change the way Government does business.

[StringJunky]

I really don't think it was the fact that she's a woman, Stringy.

The way the Democrats rigged the nomination is what 'soured' her to a lot of people ( well, OK, me ).

The Democrats showed themselves to be as self-serving as the Republicans, and so people voted for the anti-establishment candidate, the outsider, the 'wrench in the works' candidate if you will.

D Trump is not a Democrat, but he hasn't made too many Republican friends either ( except for the boot-lickers/ a*s-kissers ). He was simply seen by many, as the outsider who will change the way Government does business.

i didn't mean her gender being a primary reason but maybe had a tangible effect on the result

[waitforufo]

Perhaps not stupid but unwise, in retrospect. America had pushed the envelope with a black president and maybe wasn't ready to do it again with a woman at the helm at this stage in its history.

 

 

i didn't mean her gender being a primary reason but maybe had a tangible effect on the result

 

My guess is that Hillary's gender had no meaningful impact on the election. It was a wash. As many people likely voted for or against her for no other reason than her gender. I think the woman vote proves this out. If anything, I think many women were insulted by Hillary's "go girl" campaign and that worked against Hillary.

 

Hillary was simply a very unlikable candidate from the get go. She had no charisma. She had a long and storied history of scandal. She enabled her husbands sexual assaults on women. She's famous for treating people viciously. Secret Service agents hated her guts. Her email scandal mostly boiled down to her considering the proper securing of classified documents as an inconvenience to be ignored by her royal highness. She thought of herself as being above national record keeping laws.

 

Hillary ran a campaign with little substance. All of her adds were attack adds. To me this points to a structural problem in the Democratic party coalition. Any straight forward explanation of a Democratic agenda would infuriate some part of their coalition, so such an agenda cannot not be campaigned on. That leaves only attack.

 

Trump, on the other hand, spoke clearly stated goals. He stated his goals repeatedly in each of his enthusiastically attended campaign stops. Each goal clearly intended to piss off some part or all of the Democratic party coalition forcing a Hillary response or dodge. By these means, Trump spoke to his targeted electorate. If you didn't understand Trump's campaign, it was because Trump wasn't speaking to you. He didn't care if he was pissing you off. You weren't going to vote for him anyway. It was a brilliant strategy that paid off.

[StringJunky]

 

 

 

My guess is that Hillary's gender had no meaningful impact on the election. It was a wash. As many people likely voted for or against her for no other reason than her gender. I think the woman vote proves this out. If anything, I think many women were insulted by Hillary's "go girl" campaign and that worked against Hillary.

 

Hillary was simply a very unlikable candidate from the get go. She had no charisma. She had a long and storied history of scandal. She enabled her husbands sexual assaults on women. She's famous for treating people viciously. Secret Service agents hated her guts. Her email scandal mostly boiled down to her considering the proper securing of classified documents as an inconvenience to be ignored by her royal highness. She thought of herself as being above national record keeping laws.

 

Hillary ran a campaign with little substance. All of her adds were attack adds. To me this points to a structural problem in the Democratic party coalition. Any straight forward explanation of a Democratic agenda would infuriate some part of their coalition, so such an agenda cannot not be campaigned on. That leaves only attack.

 

Trump, on the other hand, spoke clearly stated goals. He stated his goals repeatedly in each of his enthusiastically attended campaign stops. Each goal clearly intended to piss off some part or all of the Democratic party coalition forcing a Hillary response or dodge. By these means, Trump spoke to his targeted electorate. If you didn't understand Trump's campaign, it was because Trump wasn't speaking to you. He didn't care if he was pissing you off. You weren't going to vote for him anyway. It was a brilliant strategy that paid off.

Why can't you write like this all the time? I can't agree or disagree because my knowledge is not intimate enough but your assessment seems reasonable. I was not impressed with her handling of state emails; pretty bad really when you are aspiring to carry the nuclear briefcase.

[waitforufo]

Why can't you write like this all the time?

There are a few reasons. First, I generally post at work when I'm on a small break, so I'm in a hurry. When you are dyslectic like I am, writing in a hurry is never a good idea. Sometimes a read my own posts later and I'm shocked by my bad spelling, punctuation, and grammar. I edit those posts if no one has quoted them, but since I hold a contrarian opinions from almost everyone on this forum, that is rare. The post I made above was on Saturday morning, so I had more time. Second, because of my contrarian opinions, I get a lot of rather unpleasant replies to my posts including ganging up from other forum members. When that's happening, I do my best to give as well as I get. For example, I'm not an uncaring racist, wishing for the poor, immigrants, or minorities to starve to death or otherwise die. In fact I give 10% of my gross income to charity, give blood, volunteer at my local food bank, and pay my taxes. I know, shocking. Third, some are so set in their opinions, that they take a bit of shaking up to consider other ideas. The group think on this forum is rather extreme. Finally, with regard to our most recent presidential election, I'm exuberantly happy that Hillary Clinton lost and that middle America finally found its voice. I also don't believe that those that voted for Donald Trump were nothing but white, racist, uneducated hayseed country bumpkins. They were honest, law abiding, hard working, tax paying citizens. Thinking otherwise, in my opinion, is racists and bigoted. I think its hilarious that Hillary Clinton supporters, after Hillary shamed Donald Trump for saying he would wait for the results of the election before supporting the outcome, and conceded the election personally to Trump, and publicly to the Nation, are now protesting in the streets, and on this forum when Donald wins. Yes, he won. That pesky constitution we have gives no consideration to the popular vote. We are the United States, not the United Populous. Our founders wanted all sovereign States to have a say in who there leaders are, not just highly populated States, or in this case highly populated counties within states.

[John Cuthber]

Just a thought.

If you say "such and such a politician is a crook" on a web page and a dozen people all post replies saying something like "no they are not"; "not as big a crook as ...." and " prove it", do youu consider that to be "ganging up", or do you recognise that it's just that lots of people who do not agree with you are all individually entitled to reply?

 

Also, I may have missed something, but what did Hillary actually do that was so wrong?

 

I know she used the wrong email servers- but so did lots of people.

I know her husband couldn't keep his pants on, but that's not her responsibility.

I know she was Secretary of State when the Benghazi attacks took place, but her record on that is still a whole lot better than others (Bush, for example) who have not been pilloried for it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/

 

So, since you clearly think she's incompetent, perhaps you could explain what she did wrong

Edited November 13, 2016 by John Cuthber

[waitforufo]

I know she used the wrong email servers- but so did lots of people.

I know her husband couldn't keep his pants on, but that's not her responsibility.

I know she was Secretary of State when the Benghazi attacks took place, but her record on that is still a whole lot better than others (Bush, for example) who have not been pilloried for it.

Lot's of people were not running for president. Hillary Clinton was.

 

Hillary Clinton covered for Bill Clinton, and attacked the women who accused him. Then she went so far as to campaign that all such accusations should be believed. Hypocrisy.

 

There is plenty of now publicly available information that the State Department knew fully well, at the time, that the attack in Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack. The Benghazi attack happened on 9/11/2012. Two months before President Obama's second term election. The spontaneous attack story caused by a BS movie was simply a lie to get Obama through the election. She even told that lie to the families of those kill and then called those grieving people liars when they reported it to the public. Finally, during the Benghazi congressional hearings she said "What difference at this point does it make?" Many Americans heard that as 'It worked, Obama won, so "what difference at this point does it make?"'. Well now she knows.

Edited November 13, 2016 by waitforufo

[John Cuthber]

Lot's of people were not running for president. Hillary Clinton was.

 

Hillary Clinton covered for Bill Clinton, and attacked the women who accused him. Then she went so far as to campaign that all such accusations should be believed. Hypocrisy.

 

There is plenty of now publicly available information that the State Department knew fully well, at the time, that the attack in Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack. The Benghazi attack happened on 9/11/2012. Two months before President Obama's second term election. The spontaneous attack story caused by a BS movie was simply a lie to get Obama through the election. She even told that lie to the families of those kill and then called those grieving people liars when they reported it to the public. Finally, during the Benghazi congressional hearings she said "What difference at this point does it make?" Many Americans heard that as 'It worked, Obama won, so "what difference at this point does it make?"'. Well now she knows.

Lots of people who were in pretty much equally sensitive positions were using the wrong servers.

Hillary very clearly didn't cover for Bill.

You seem to have missed the fact that he got caught.

If she had been covering for him, she would have been prosecuted for perjury.

 

And campaigning that women should be believed- at least to the extent that there is an investigation- is the right thing to do.

So, you are calling her a hypocrite for saying something that's true, or are you saying they should not be believed? I'm sure Trump would love the latter option- maybe he will try to write it into law.

Let's get back to the time of the attack

A reasonable justification for saying that the attack was in response to a fil is that

well... that's what the attackers said.

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/14/four-media-reports-from-libya-that-linked-the-b/194073

 

What she actually said was "With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans! Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans?! What difference, at this point, does it make?! It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. "

So if people took it to mean what you said, that's because they heard it out of context. I wonder how that happened.

 

 

Given what she actually said, how do you justify this "Many Americans heard that as 'It worked, Obama won, so "what difference at this point does it make?"'. Well now she knows. "

 

What does she now know?

[MigL]

In politics, impressions are everything John.

It shouldn't be that way because she's clearly the more capable candidate.

She just gives people the wrong impression and comes across as unlikable and untrustworthy.

( so much so that a sizable portion of the population consider her LESS trustworthy than someone like D Trump )

Even her smiles/laughs look forced.

 

Maybe the Democrats are regretting the way they treated B Sanders now, but they cheated the populace by handing H Clinton the nomination win, and now are hypocritically accusing the Republicans of cheating to win the Presidency ?

 

But back to appearance/ impressions, I know we shouldn't elect leaders bases on 'looks', but we are, to a great extent, shallow.

We have elected, in Canada, a Prime Minister who has continued all of the previous Conservative policies ( including the greenhouse gas emission targets for which Harper was vilified ) and increased the deficit. But he takes lots of 'selfies" because he' s a good looking young man with 'cute' hair.

And everyone says he's the best thing since sliced bread !

[John Cuthber]

It's important to recognise that the real problem with Trump is that he's a member of his party.

The individual should hardly matter, so perhaps that's why they get chosen for their looks.

 

Also, there's no clear evidence that Hillary is particularly untrustworthy, yet that's the perception.

That suggests that someone is lying about her, and I'm guessing that's not the Democrats.

 

The issue here is one of deliberate deceit.

[Willie71]

It's important to recognise that the real problem with Trump is that he's a member of his party.

The individual should hardly matter, so perhaps that's why they get chosen for their looks.

 

Also, there's no clear evidence that Hillary is particularly untrustworthy, yet that's the perception.

That suggests that someone is lying about her, and I'm guessing that's not the Democrats.

 

The issue here is one of deliberate deceit.

John, I've said this before, but even if ALL of the criticisms of Clinton were fabricated, she has a branding issue. She is extremely damaged perceptually amongst the electorate. It was (or at least should be obvious now) a terrible idea to prop her up. She only stayed in the running because Trump is the worst candidate to ever run for president.

 

That being said, there is a lot of very optically bad decision making in regards to the donations to the Clinton Foundation from human rights violators, the appearance of conflict of interest in paid speeches by both herself and Bill, and the collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaign. I know a lot of people here explained all that away, but even if no prosecutable violations took place, the optics are horrific, and it cost the Dems the election, the house, and the senate. Anyone involved in the debacle should be fired for such poor judgement and performance.

[John Cuthber]

How did she get such a poor "brand"

Was it that people who oppose her kept on lying?

 

Nobody seems to have come up with anything she did that's as stupid as, for example Trump's wall, or as dishonest as his claim that he'd build it, followed by his retraction.

 

How come Trump's "brand" survives the fact that he's currently due in court to face rape allegations?

Is it related to the fact that, for example, Fox news the other day, described Trump's fellow racist nutter from he UK (Nigel Farage) as "the leader of the opposition"- even though he's actually the defunct leader of a party with no power?

 

That "branding issue." has a reason- and the reason is election rigging by her opponents.

[imatfaal]

By the way - if we extend the time period slightly, what is the forum's view on France electing Ms Le Pen as President? Would this act this make it into the reckoning - she is a lot more up front with her racism and bigotry; does that make it more stupid or less?

[Willie71]

How did she get such a poor "brand"

Was it that people who oppose her kept on lying?

 

Nobody seems to have come up with anything she did that's as stupid as, for example Trump's wall, or as dishonest as his claim that he'd build it, followed by his retraction.

 

How come Trump's "brand" survives the fact that he's currently due in court to face rape allegations?

Is it related to the fact that, for example, Fox news the other day, described Trump's fellow racist nutter from he UK (Nigel Farage) as "the leader of the opposition"- even though he's actually the defunct leader of a party with no power?

 

That "branding issue." has a reason- and the reason is election rigging by her opponents.

My comments are unrelated to whether the branding is fair or not. It simply is reality, and Clinton isn't charismatic enough to redeem herself. The world isn't a fair place.

[John Cuthber]

My comments are unrelated to whether the branding is fair or not. It simply is reality, and Clinton isn't charismatic enough to redeem herself. The world isn't a fair place.

My comment was that we know why it is unfair and we should hold those who are responsible to account for destruction of fairness.

[Willie71]

My comment was that we know why it is unfair and we should hold those who are responsible to account for destruction of fairness.

We need to look no further than Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan for dismantling the news accountability. This allowed the Republicans

spouting of nonsense being treated as credible people, and neoliberals are allowed to spread their fake populism too. Advertisers can influence what gets covered, and news presents what gets ratings, rather than being the check and balance it is supposed to be.

[John Cuthber]

It looks like the UK has scored an equaliser in "extra time".

[DrKrettin]

Our Daily Mash has a series of articles which effectively nominate stupidest political acts, namely:

 

My idiot sons could run this country better than you, Queen tells May

Jubilant Corbyn celebrates defeat by an idiot

Please stay while we savour your humiliation, Britain tells May

Brexit to take 250 years

 

and a reference to the Northern Ireland protestant politicians which whom she is making a coalition

 

 

May hoping for 'constructive relationship' with creationist homophobes who think Pope is Satan

[KipIngram]

Perhaps not stupid but unwise, in retrospect. America had pushed the envelope with a black president and maybe wasn't ready to do it again with a woman at the helm at this stage in its history.

 

I don't think her gender had anything to do with it - I didn't have that sense at any time during the campaign. I think her integrity was just called into question one time too many. I still think she "almost won," in spite of it. But my vote was very precisely a "vote against Hillary," and her being a woman had nothing to with it in my mind at least.

i didn't mean her gender being a primary reason but maybe had a tangible effect on the result

 

Oh, well that could be true. Given how close the election was, it wouldn't have taken very many people who did, in fact, vote against her for gender reasons to tip it.

Hillary Clinton covered for Bill Clinton, and attacked the women who accused him. Then she went so far as to campaign that all such accusations should be believed. Hypocrisy.

 

Even though I recognize that it's not the "right" behavior, it's very very hard for me to judge a person terribly harshly for trying to protect their family. Yes, in a perfect world you'd react to such a situation just like you would re: any other bad / criminal behavior. But blood is thick (matrimonial blood too). I consider myself a good, law-abiding person, but I really don't like to think of all the things I might be capable of if my wife or one of my daughters were at stake. If it was their reputation only I wouldn't be as strongly affected as I would if it was their life or liberty, literally, but the effect would still be there.

 

I just don't expect people to be fully objective when it comes to their family.

 

You're right about the double standard her later campaigning showed us, but that sort of double standard behavior is standard fare for politicians these days. You can see it in some people's behavior right here on this forum, and you don't have to look very hard.