US General Election 2016

I think even his core supporters might have a wobble or two after this. the ones that wanted change and thought they could tolerate his bluster and bragging. but this is a bridge too far. anyone who votes for him now will know in no uncertain terms he is a foul piece of work.

Not to defend him, but what he said was exactly right: it was very much the type of thing you hear in locker rooms. You would hope not to hear it from an successful businessman on the far end of middle age, but business is known for a locker room mentality. Little doubt what he said about hearing worse while golfing with Bill Clinton is also true. People try to hide it, but it's naive to think this kind of thing has nothing to do with the mainstream.

{{{ I think there must be a difference in Scottish and American 'locker room' talk then Halfy.
I have in all male company said things I would not today be proud of, I have objectified, sexualised and reduced women in such company - but I have never, nor known anyone in such circumstances, bragged about just grabbing women by the pussy. Talking about women in such circumstances in sexualised ways, as objects, bragging about sexual prowess and successes, sure heard it all. But someone here starts bragging about just assaulting women you take a step back and get very wary of them in'fucking'deed. And you don't introduce them to anyone female you know, and you sure as fuck don't elect them President of your entire country.

Americans you really shouldn't need this one spelled out to you!! And some of you think Obama has weakened US influence abroad!- this farce has not done your global reputation as the brightest of things much good. The election of the worlds greatest superpower's, mightiest military force, self proclaimed the worlds greatest democracy and self appointed leaders of the free world's President is now a global freak show being mocked daily on tv shows across the world when its not viewed with slack-jawed incredulity or met with howls of disbelieving laughter. Its not even like you can satirise America any more through its pop culture when it already looks exactly the same as one of pop cultures worst sort of reality tv shows. }}}}}}

I agree about the locker room thing. I have been to rugby clubs and overheard 'stuff' its all part of male bonding and banter and most of it is harmless. no harm done. but as Petty said, this is about physical assault on a person just because he knows he can get away with it. Trump hasn't had many people who have said NO to him in his adult life, mores the pity. and it sends out a dangerous message to society in general. its a bit like the Jo Cox murder, a small minority of mentally unstable people taking things deadly seriously to disasterous effect. its not ok. and its not fucking normal. for a Western leader of the free world. we need someone to respect like Obama.

What's disturbing is that it IS so close to the mainstream. That Trump would be saying these things is hardly unexpected. I do think it's dying out, but it will be a long slow death. It's the excuse the mainstream has been looking for to get rid of him - a way to turn away from the seamy underbelly of the American Boy's club. We can hope he takes a lot of it with him.

its funny how even though as you said it is the mainstream, and Trump represents the violent swing against political correctness, which had gone too far over to the ridiculous lengths, such as being afraid of offending people by mentioning Christmas, his attack on political correctness has just laid bare what political correctness was trying to paper over. scratch the surface and this is the reality underneath in all its gruesomeness. he has singlehandedly taken the lid off society. all society, everywhere.

bungobaggins wrote:@Eldo How does a Republican governor get elected in Maryland?

FYI this is an honest question,  not the set up for a lame joke. Which is what it sounded like when I re-read my post.

Well, Maryland gubernatorial elections are always in midterm years, which is probably part of the reason for Hogan's victory. I'm not sure if I really agree with Halfy about politics being less partisan about the state level. I think I'd say instead that the state parties are their own creatures and operate in systems that are semi-separate from the national system. Hogan would never win a Republican presidential primary, but it's doubtful he would have won in Maryland without his moderate positions, especially on social issues. The Maryland Democratic party is very powerful, in part thanks to gerrymandering, and I think Hogan's election was largely a rebuke to a party that had become too self-absorbed and complacent. The Democratic nominee, who at the time was the Lieutenant Governor, sort of embodied this and didn't take Hogan seriously at first, and once poll-induced panic set in ran a very dirty (and falsehood filled) campaign. A lot of people disliked the extent of tax increases that had occurred under the Democrats and the state's economy wasn't doing well enough to really justify staying the course in terms of economic policy.

Hogan has been pretty effective so far and continues to poll well AFAIK so he has a pretty good shot at re-election (especially since he won't be tarred by any association with Trump), but I expect most of the governors who follow him in the foreseeable future to be Democrats.

halfwise wrote:What's disturbing is that it IS so close to the mainstream.  That Trump would be saying these things is hardly unexpected.  I do think it's dying out, but it will be a long slow death.  It's the excuse the mainstream has been looking for to get rid of him - a way to turn away from the seamy underbelly of the American Boy's club.  We can hope he takes a lot of it with him.

I'm sure what Trump said was more or less normal (even if vocalizing it in the way he did was not) in the '60s and probably even the '80s, but it certainly isn't now and most voters under the age of, say, 25-30 don't have any memory of a world where that was the considered acceptable by the mainstream (although such behavior has obviously not gone away).

Jumping back a page...

Corruption, for as much as that word gets tossed around, is a serious charge. I have to wonder what specific policies people think have been put into place by the US government as a result of money changing hands. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but let's look at some of the common allegations. Free trade areas? Those are supported by a majority of Americans and withdrawing from them would raise consumer prices, which voters hate. The War on Terror? The evidence there points more towards the belligerent, ideological brand of nationalism espoused by neoconservatives than straight-up war profiteering. People say it was all about oil but Afghanistan isn't an oil producer* and the pipeline that was supposedly the motivation for the war was never built. We import less oil from Iraq than we did before the invasion and the post-war Iraqi oil contracts went entirely to non-American companies. You could probably make the strongest case for corruption regarding Wall Street regulations but much of the responsibility for the system that led to the Great Recession lies with Alan Greenspan, who promoted deregulation so fervently because he's a dyed-in-the-wool Randian, a true believer.

I don't mean to suggest that money plays no role in politics (though the efficacy of "buying elections" through donations and media buys is questionable) and most politicians are rich so it's not surprising that they often promote policies that are most strongly supported by and advantageous to the upper class. But a great deal of what happens in politics is due to people genuinely believing what they say, although both sides tend to suggest that the other is insincere and has ulterior motives for disagreeing rather than holding genuinely different political beliefs. This isn't an excuse for anything but I think it's best to acknowledge ideologies that I disagree with for what they are instead of assuming that no one could actually believe that sort of thing just because it seems so off base to me.

*EDIT: actually, Googling around a bit, it seems that the first oil drilling project in Afghan history began in 2012, but it was by a Chinese company (and more than a decade after the invasion), so it doesn't really affect my point.

When I think of US corruption I think of the revolving door between congressional policy makers and private industry. Pharmaceutical, Insurance, Military, Energy, you name it...

That's definitely a thing and I would agree that it makes it harder to trust policymakers to make unbiased decisions, but when I think of corruption my mind goes to bribes, kickbacks, and specific services for money. Or, say, a politician being promised a cushy consulting gig as specifically for pushing through a certain piece of legislation. Maybe I'm focusing too much on semantics, but politicians are people and like anyone they're always going to bring their own personal motivations, connections, and agendas with them. To some extent that's just human nature. The way things currently work in the US certainly exacerbates that, though.

Edit: I think it's worth noting that lobbying (and the revolving door) is by not something that only corporations do. Unions, non-profits, and ideological think tanks all try to influence policy and one of the ways they do this is through personal connections, often by bringing former policymakers on board to help grease the wheels (or to lend an air of credibility to the organization). As such I don't see lobbying as innately bad, though some tactics are arguably a form of corruption. But the US actually has some of the strictest rules and regulations on lobbying in the world, particularly regarding disclosure.

The US has come through some of the most corrupt political machines in history, and somehow managed to throw them off. This still amazes me. Influence via campaign donations remains a problem, and yet every time law enforcement arrests their political overlords for corruption by the books I feel a surge of faith in our government. So many loopholes have been sealed that I think we now actually have the cleanest government ever.

Yes, the problems in our government remain legion, but especially compared to a century ago illegal corruption is the least of our worries.

@Eldo, I thought it might have something to do with midterms or more moderate stances.

To the present state of the race, I think I have to remind myself that Trump never actually wanted to win the election. So what's going on really plays right into his hands. He can retire after this, buy some private island and never have to show his face ever again.

@Halfy, good point regarding the changes that we've seen since the 19th century. The professionalization of the civil service (thanks, Chester Alan Arthur!) in particular played a big role in stamping out patronage and the forms of petty corruption that tend to result from it.

@bungo, yeah, I think you had the right idea regarding Hogan and Maryland.

Regarding Trump, I'm reluctant to try to guess what his secret motivations may have been, but I don't think he was counting on the level of scrutiny he's received. He already lost Miss Universe and The Apprentice, there's even more scrutiny on his dodgy projects like Trump University, and the myth of his financial genius has been thoroughly and publicly dismantled. He thrives on attention so I'd be a little surprised if he retires from public life, though if that's the case than at least he went out with a bang. And if he really was a Clinton sleeper agent (which is not a theory I've ever subscribed to) I think it's safe to say that he succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

Chester Alan Arthur: I had to look that up.  His civil service reforms occurred in the late 1880's, but I think it's fair to say corruption across the board wasn't stamped out until the 1940's (though it lingered in Chicago and New York politics through the 1970's).  Would you say there was a trickle down effect from the national to the state and local levels?  I know the FBI had a lot to do with breaking up the organized crime that fed city corruption.

I'm no expert but I think it's probably accurate to say that it trickled down, yeah. It took a while for the federal bureaucracy to become fully professionalized, and then the states had to follow suit. And it took time for the attendant cultural changes to sink in, too. I think the growing power of the federal government and the eventual existence of the FBI, which was able to investigate state and local governments, made it harder for corrupt local "machines" to carry on as well.

{{{My idea of US corruption (and western politics in general, US in partiucalr- is vesated interests. Clinton her foundation, backhanders, brown envelope dealings is aprime example.
Iraq is another- it wasn't the oil, it was the weapons- you can sell them to all sides, and what sorto fsweetenrs did the Saudis throw in for the Bush's? Their oil business has plenty connection in Saudi.
Lobbying is another issue- as is campaign funding.

I'd say a good start in general would be no more fund raising for elections- each party gets the same amount from the tax payer to spend as they see fit over the election period. Fair and level playing field.

Lobbying should be reduced to its basics- so group turns up at the offices of the elected official- pitches their case and leaves- no trips and plush hotels, nightclubs, bars, free cars or anything else.

And lastly not only should any serving member have to give up any corporate positions they hold, any they do or have held should be public record, and they should also be automatically barred from voting on issues which directly effect businesses they have a personal financial connection to, or are likely to benefit from in the long term or their families.

That'd be a start. }}}

this is going to be EPIC!

pity its at 2 am Figg time.

So Ted Cruz is implying the reason the Trump lewd tapes were held onto for long without being released is that the media is biased towards Trump. He thought they should have been released during the primaries. Seems to me if that were true they wouldn't have released them at all. Seems to me the maximum damage was inflicted by waiting until he was the nominee. I have to applaud them for holding onto such a bombshell for so long until the time was ripest.

they probably didn't think they would need to use the tape, and then the Trumprage just ran out of control, and they thought crap its now or never.

Oh boy a "debate," looks like I'll be sleeping then.

Oh, but this one will be a doozy.  Town hall format, the tapes just came out, Trump is promising to dig up Bill Clinton's dirty laundry.  None of this has anything do with running a country, but for sheer entertainment it will be right up there with the fights that regularly break out in Taiwan's parliament.

{{{I really want to stay up for this one, but I'm working tomorrow- is it worth the pain I wonder? }}}

if you have a way to record it, do so. If not, I'm sure you'll find it online eventually.

halfwise wrote:So Ted Cruz is implying the reason the Trump lewd tapes were held onto for long without being released is that the media is biased towards Trump. He thought they should have been released during the primaries.  Seems to me if that were true they wouldn't have released them at all.  Seems to me the maximum damage was inflicted by waiting until he was the nominee.  I have to applaud them for holding onto such a bombshell for so long until the time was ripest.

I wonder if the WaPo had the tapes all this time or if it was someone in the Clinton camp (or an ally) who waited to send them to the media at the opportune moment. For the sake of journalistic integrity I hope it was the latter.