US General Election 2016

This election is real isn't it? - its not like a huge publicity stunt for something? Or a weird global hallucination?

It's a hallucination produced by commercial television coupled with a changing country that make some people feel they are losing rather than winning. Simple as that.

Both choices scare the shist out of me Hillary and trump for president.

I'm just curious - what is it about Hillary that could possibly be as scary as Trump? (not that she doesn't have her bad qualities).

Halfwise, you misunderstood me. I didn't intend to imply that she worried me more than Trump.
He is by far the scariest of them all to me with his fascist rhetoric. His attitudes and mannerisms would point the nation and the world in the direction of conflict and woe.

Hillary on the other hand has always struck me as untrustworty and deceptive. She talks the talk of helping the common man like some sort of Nice liberator and champion of The People while the bitter and cold heartless look in her eyes speaks to me of the liar playing a game of deception with a hidden agenda to save individuals from themselves by dictating from on high what we Should do. Like an overbearing bad mother.

I'm neither democrat or republican. From my perspective there really isn't much difference in their behavior. They talk like there is but their actions betray their sales pitches. They both suck and are liars promoting things they never really reveal in clear words or actions.

Of course this is an extremely complex conundrum this governing business with no easy answer or more likely no answer at all.

Good luck to us all and to each a good day.

yeah, I don't refer to myself as democrat or republican for the same reasons, but if we had to end up with a leader who was just following the motions to get the vote, I'd rather it was the democratic motions. Fewer people hung out to dry.

I would prefer Hilary if I had to choose. Trump seems like a non Italian Benito Mussollini and Berlusconi love child.

Halfwise and figg,
If those two are the choices I agree. Although the thought of Hillary as president makes me cringe.

At least she will be thwarted in most of her efforts by the many who would oppose her tooth and nail.
I personally prefer a split government which can make few changes.

At least she seems less likely to wage self righteous war in the world which is a big concern of mine.

The thought of either winning makes my stomach flip.

Are either of these really the best we can put forward to lead?

That is what is most unbelievable to me. I have to think that is not true and that America is playing a fixed and dirty game that someone is manipulating us all with for unseen reasons. Makes NO sense to me whatsoever. Peace to all.

first female president has to be an interesting opportunity.

Music of the Ainur wrote:
Are either of these really the best we can put forward to lead?

That is what is most unbelievable to me. I have to think that is not true and that America is playing a fixed and dirty game that someone is manipulating us all with for unseen reasons. Makes NO sense to me whatsoever. Peace to all.

The way I see it, now sensible person would ever consider doing such an impossible job with so much responsibility and so little real power, even without having to survive such a gauntlet of abuse to even get there.  Any truly sensible, capable, intelligent leader would clearly pick a more realistic goal to devote their life to. And so we get stuck with the egotists, masochists and sadists...

I would actually call Hillary quite capable, the email server business notwithstanding. She's looking quite fake now in the game to get votes, but she's far more likely to reason her way through a real situation than bluster her way through it. By 'real' I mean not a media firestorm, which she is inclined to bluster her way through.

She's got the intellect to see her way through subtle international waters, even if she's too tone-deaf to sell domestic policy. And I think her domestic policy would be good if she can just figure out how to sell it. Her major weakness is she doesn't seem real to people, so they are suspicious of her good as well as her self serving motives.

The problem for Hilary as I see it is not just the perception of dodgy goings on, but actual dodgy goings on, not just the email thing which frankly is now so political its impossible to determine any truth from any more, but also the money from donations going to the Clinton Foundation and being spent on shit like private jets for the Clintons instead of good causes seems a pretty robust case to me and looks like thats what has indeed been happening.
I think her main problem is people think she is first and foremost self-serving.

This does not however necessarily make her bad as a President, all politicians have to be self-serving to some degree. The problem lies in how far she will go with it- will she cut international deals which might not necessarily be for the benefit of the country so much as for the post-Presidential years of the Clintons for example?
Right now, I wouldn't put it past her.

halfwise wrote:I would actually call Hillary quite capable, the email server business notwithstanding.

I'll give you capable. I'll give you intelligent. It's 'sensible' and 'leader' I've got my doubts about.

About as enthusiastic as I can get about Hillery is "She'll do, I guess..."

you have all probably had a Hillary Clinton presidency already. I have the feeling she was always the brains in the family.

I'd call it an even split. Bill comes across as folksy, but he's about as smart as they come. A woman like Hillary wouldn't marry anyone below the 99.5th percentile.

I think Hillary would be a pretty competent President in most respects, but her approach to foreign policy worries me (though not nearly as much as all the major GOP candidates) and I find the sense of entitlement (and resulting dirty tactics) she used against Obama in '08 and seems to be beginning to use against Bernie now to be off-putting. Haven't dug deep enough into the Clinton Foundation scandal to know how much has merit and how much is purely partisan (like Benghazi).

I've got Primary burnout; still interested in seeing the Iowa results, especially now that Bernie is a legitimate threat.

If Bernie wins in Iowa and/or New Hampshire I think he has a legit shot at riding the wave of media attention to far more primary victories than most people were expecting. But I'd still call Clinton the favorite.

It all comes down to who independents would vote for in the end. Will Trump drive all of them into the hands of democrats, or is there a chance they'd prefer him to Hillary or Bernie? On the other hand, republicans who can't stand Trump would most likely vote for Hillary over Bernie.

I think Bernie's my guy.

Having your heart in the right place isn't the only requirement for being president, unfortunately. Being able to manipulate people counts for a lot - especially powerful people. Bleak, but true.

halfwise wrote:It all comes down to who independents would vote for in the end.

Reuters wrote:
Michael Bloomberg may launch independent U.S. presidential bid: source
By Dustin Volz and Steve Holland

This is promising to be an interesting election.

Wait, what? Bloomberg?

This has the potential to be amazing.

In the battle of billionaires there's no question who wins the sanity vote. The problem is Bloomburg has totally lost the gun vote. Hard to tell which is more important.

The beauty of it all is that Trump, who's identified as a Democrat for most of his life, is running as a Republican, while Bloomberg who used to be a Republican would be running as an Independent, while at the same time Sanders, a life-long Independent, is running as a Democrat.

If all three of these guys make it to the general election, I think we can declare the two-party system officially dead.

halfwise wrote:In the battle of billionaires there's no question who wins the sanity vote.  The problem is Bloomburg has totally lost the gun vote.  Hard to tell which is more important.

Not totally, I'm thinking. There are a lot of sane gun owners who have supported the gun lobby in the past, but are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the NRA and nut-case extreme rhetoric of the far right. Bloomberg could just be the man to split the pro-gun vote.