Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 ... 49
Send Topic Print
Who Will Win the Presidency? (Read 55951 times)
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 136337
Gender: male
Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #285 - Oct 24th, 2016 at 3:05pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 2:46pm:
Post of the Week, Frank.



Jesus, you've lowered the bar.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 44387
Gender: male
Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #286 - Oct 24th, 2016 at 3:10pm
 
Karnal wrote on Oct 23rd, 2016 at 7:17pm:
Oh, old boy, we all love how you use the term "the Establishment" with a straight face. As if you're not the most Establishment poster here.

Nudge nudge wink wink, innit. And yes, past US presidents managed global transitions to benefit the US and the world - FDR in particular. conference at Yalta ring a bell?

Not every president has to be a Nixon or a Bush Jnr, dear. Trump, of course, would not even be that. The reset button? Trump would be impeached in his first term.

Reset that, Establishment.




From the Pravda on the Hudson (New York Times) yesterday:


The Dangers of Hillary Clinton


The dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency are more familiar than Trump’s authoritarian unknowns, because we live with them in our politics already. They’re the dangers of elite groupthink, of Beltway power worship, of a cult of presidential action in the service of dubious ideals. They’re the dangers of a recklessness and radicalism that doesn’t recognize itself as either, because it’s convinced that if an idea is mainstream and commonplace among the great and good then it cannot possibly be folly.

Almost every crisis that has come upon the West in the last 15 years has its roots in this establishmentarian type of folly. The Iraq War, which liberals prefer to remember as a conflict conjured by a neoconservative cabal, was actually the work of a bipartisan interventionist consensus, pushed hard by George W. Bush but embraced as well by a large slice of center-left opinion that included Tony Blair and more than half of Senate Democrats.

Likewise the financial crisis: Whether you blame financial-services deregulation or happy-go-lucky housing policy (or both), the policies that helped inflate and pop the bubble were embraced by both wings of the political establishment. Likewise with the euro, the European common currency, a terrible idea that only cranks and Little Englanders dared oppose until the Great Recession exposed it as a potentially economy-sinking folly. Likewise with Angela Merkel’s grand and reckless open-borders gesture just last year: She was the heroine of a thousand profiles even as she delivered her continent to polarization and violence.

This record of elite folly — which doesn’t even include lesser case studies like our splendid little war in Libya — is a big part of why the United States has a “let’s try crazy” candidate in this election, and why there are so many Trumpian parties thriving on European soil.

...
One can look at Trump himself and see too much danger of still-deeper disaster, too much temperamental risk and moral turpitude, to be an acceptable alternative to this blunder-ridden status quo ... while also looking at Hillary Clinton and seeing a woman whose record embodies the tendencies that gave rise to Trumpism in the first place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/opinion/sunday/the-dangers-of-hillary-clinton....

You seem to be the last one not getting that.

Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
cods
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 88048
Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #287 - Oct 24th, 2016 at 3:19pm
 
you know the scariest thing about this whole election is..

one of these guys will be the new President of the USA...... the looser will fade into oblivion...

and the world will be stuck with the what will loosely be called the "winner."..yippee....

I do hope those who support the "winner" dont end up eating their words....well its the best we can hope for.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 40679
Gender: male
Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #288 - Oct 24th, 2016 at 3:54pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 2:45pm:
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 2:32pm:
Have to admit I did hear a French economist talk about why Trump and Sanders got so much traction this election year.


They were both pitching the same angle, but the solution was different.

People are angry about wage inequality, why they can't get jobs etc. Sanders and Trump both tapped into that.

The key difference is how each candidate looked at the cause and therefore the solution.

Sanders thought it was at the top end of twon.
Trump thinks its minorities.



I don't think Trump blames minorities. He blames the political class best represented by Hillary, funded by rich donors, championed by Big Media.



X 2
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95204
Gender: male
Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #289 - Oct 24th, 2016 at 4:52pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 2:27pm:
Karnal wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 1:02pm:
The point, as you know very well, is not to create policies, but to hit all the right notes with the bigots. 




No - the point is to represent the popular will rather than be as unmoored from who you represent as the Democrats and the Republicans are now. 


This is not the popular will. It's a distraction created by a certain class of elites and spread through their media.

Hysteria over race is an easy fallback option, but it masks the very real issues that have hit the Western world since the GFC, or the "Great Recession" as it's known in the US.

The "Establishment" response to this economic crisis was to bail out the banks rather than people's home loans. As real wages dropped, corporate salaries soared. As corporate taxes dropped, income taxes remained the same. People lost their homes, jobs and credit worthiness while people like Trump paid no tax at all.

What's the response? A refugee "crisis". A Mexican wall. A terror "threat". For some, it works every time. It worked in Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, the Deep South, and it seems to work all over the world when times get tough and the pinch is on. There will always be people to exploit fear and race hate, and they will always be used by your "Establishment" to distract and divert.

Always, absolutely, never ever.

It is much harder to show the causes of economic inequality than it is to find a figure to blame. Immigration has kept our economies going. In the developed world, we don't have the population to ensure the economic growth we've become used to. It's hard to show how good terms of trade keep the prices of goods down or make credit easily available. It's hard to show how an increasing population creates the demand that stimulates economies and how this translates into decent returns on investment through compound interest. The term compound interest is inherently boring. Try putting it on a chart and showing an old boy. Impossible.

Instead, put on a show like Cops or Border Security and show the underclass rampaging on our streets and foreigners trying to get one over us. Put dodgy tinted scammers on current affairs TV and Musel daily madness on the tabloid front pages.

While those in the know try to ignore the porkies and distortions - your "Establishment"; those who have countries to run and things to manage and do - people like Farange and Wilders and Our Pauline rise up to exploit them. If someone like Turnbull comes out to say how Australia has been made far better because of immigration - almost 50% of us are immigrants or the children of immigrants ourselves - those like Herbie, Bogie, Sprint and your good self rail against it, despite all of you being immigrants too.

How do you reason with such delusion? How do you deal with it? For every false statistic or fact you address, there's ten more porkies appearing, and another ten, and another.

Take Brexit. A majority of Poms voted to pull out of Europe based largely on recent terror attacks in France and Brussels - attacks carried out by Arab and African refugees. A majority voted to pull out because they feared the presence of refugees from the continent, coming up from Africa and into Britain via the channel tunnel.

But these refugees can't legally get into Britain anyway. Britain is not part of the Schengen agreement that removed European borders. In effect, England has had to watch its economy crumble based on an unrebutted lie. Why?

Try making the Schengen Agreement sound interesting. I mean, theoretically I guess you could, but try putting it on the front page of the Sun or UK Daily Mail. The tabloids are in on it, and not so much because they like telling fibs, but they just make for an easier and more compelling read.

Just watch. Before long, the tabloids will come up with a way to blame the state of the UK economy on the tinted races. You'll even make this case yourself. The more delusional the argument is, the more it gets parroted. Look at Trump - he can spread the most ridiculous porkies, and even if they can be caught up with and disputed, you'll be busy quoting the next one, and the next. You're doing it already, pretending a media-hyped billionaire is a victim of the media and a man of the people.

You never listen. When it all comes crashing down, as it inevitably does, you'll forgive and move on and, inexplicably, forget. You forget your stance on Iraq, one minute baying for Muslim blood and jerking off to the war footage, and only 3 years later, acknowledging it was a war that could never be won and should never have been started to begin with. Homo's even blaming Hillary Clinton - for a war he loved at the time because it put Iraqis in their place.

You know, 200,000 men, women and children killed for their complicity in Sept 11. That'll show them. And now?

Hillary's a warmonger. 

There is no way to confront such hypocrisy and doublethink. I do try, but I always fail. Ultimately, there is only one real argument that will work on you. Sprint, a born-again Christian, makes the case well:

Kill them.



Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 24th, 2016 at 5:04pm by Karnal »  
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #290 - Oct 24th, 2016 at 5:23pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 12:41pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 11:36am:
Frank wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 10:54am:
A small but telling point: Wikileaks' Julian Assange has lived in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for over four years. But not until he leaked against Hillary was his Internet cut off. Hillary, out of office, has a swifter and more ruthless global reach than Hillary in office on the night of Benghazi. And, should she win, her view of her subjects is that we should have the same information access as Ecuadorian Embassy refugees.

More like the Secret Service determined that Assange's stalking of Clinton constituted a threat to a US Presidential candidate.

Grin Grin Grin

You guys are desperate.


Nothing to do with Clinton... If they did it, they would also do the same for Trump...

Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95204
Gender: male
Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #291 - Oct 24th, 2016 at 5:59pm
 
Frank wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 3:10pm:
Karnal wrote on Oct 23rd, 2016 at 7:17pm:
Oh, old boy, we all love how you use the term "the Establishment" with a straight face. As if you're not the most Establishment poster here.

Nudge nudge wink wink, innit. And yes, past US presidents managed global transitions to benefit the US and the world - FDR in particular. conference at Yalta ring a bell?

Not every president has to be a Nixon or a Bush Jnr, dear. Trump, of course, would not even be that. The reset button? Trump would be impeached in his first term.

Reset that, Establishment.




From the Pravda on the Hudson (New York Times) yesterday:


The Dangers of Hillary Clinton


The dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency are more familiar than Trump’s authoritarian unknowns, because we live with them in our politics already. They’re the dangers of elite groupthink, of Beltway power worship, of a cult of presidential action in the service of dubious ideals. They’re the dangers of a recklessness and radicalism that doesn’t recognize itself as either, because it’s convinced that if an idea is mainstream and commonplace among the great and good then it cannot possibly be folly.

Almost every crisis that has come upon the West in the last 15 years has its roots in this establishmentarian type of folly. The Iraq War, which liberals prefer to remember as a conflict conjured by a neoconservative cabal, was actually the work of a bipartisan interventionist consensus, pushed hard by George W. Bush but embraced as well by a large slice of center-left opinion that included Tony Blair and more than half of Senate Democrats.

Likewise the financial crisis: Whether you blame financial-services deregulation or happy-go-lucky housing policy (or both), the policies that helped inflate and pop the bubble were embraced by both wings of the political establishment. Likewise with the euro, the European common currency, a terrible idea that only cranks and Little Englanders dared oppose until the Great Recession exposed it as a potentially economy-sinking folly. Likewise with Angela Merkel’s grand and reckless open-borders gesture just last year: She was the heroine of a thousand profiles even as she delivered her continent to polarization and violence.

This record of elite folly — which doesn’t even include lesser case studies like our splendid little war in Libya — is a big part of why the United States has a “let’s try crazy” candidate in this election, and why there are so many Trumpian parties thriving on European soil.

...
One can look at Trump himself and see too much danger of still-deeper disaster, too much temperamental risk and moral turpitude, to be an acceptable alternative to this blunder-ridden status quo ... while also looking at Hillary Clinton and seeing a woman whose record embodies the tendencies that gave rise to Trumpism in the first place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/opinion/sunday/the-dangers-of-hillary-clinton....

You seem to be the last one not getting that.



Oh, I most certainly do get that. It just leaves out the bit where Trump thinks he can rewrite history and deny his own past comments and pretend to be a game-changer.

Trump has always been pro-choice, and now he's pro-life. Pro-drug decriminalization, and now tough on drugs. For the invasion of Iraq, and now against it. For universal health-care, and now against that.

He's used cheap foreign labour to build skyscrapers. He's imported Chinese steel. He's paid big money to Democrat politicians, including "crooked Hillary". Almost every position he takes is the exact opposite of what he once said or did.

Of course you admire Donald Trump, old boy.

You like being f_cked.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 34441
Gender: male
Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #292 - Oct 24th, 2016 at 7:26pm
 
cods wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 3:19pm:
you know the scariest thing about this whole election is..

one of these guys will be the new President of the USA...... the looser will fade into oblivion...

and the world will be stuck with the what will loosely be called the "winner."..yippee....

I do hope those who support the "winner" dont end up eating their words....well its the best we can hope for.


It will only be a 4 year term if the new President doesn't make all those who were supporting Trump before his nasty habits came to light - happy.

Personally, I can't believe it's been all of eight years since Obama came to office. It seems like just a couple of years ago that we were all talking about it.

For me, the reason Obama's presidency has flashed past so quickly is because it's been so uneventful.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 24th, 2016 at 7:32pm by Lord Herbert »  
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 34441
Gender: male
Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #293 - Oct 24th, 2016 at 7:43pm
 
Karnal wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 5:59pm:
Trump has always been pro-choice, and now he's pro-life. Pro-drug decriminalization, and now tough on drugs. For the invasion of Iraq, and now against it. For universal health-care, and now against that.

He's used cheap foreign labour to build skyscrapers. He's imported Chinese steel. He's paid big money to Democrat politicians, including "crooked Hillary". Almost every position he takes is the exact opposite of what he once said or did. 


That demonstrates a willingness to hang loose and remain flexible rather than be set in concrete like a Jimmy Hoffa.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 95204
Gender: male
Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #294 - Oct 24th, 2016 at 7:53pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 7:43pm:
Karnal wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 5:59pm:
Trump has always been pro-choice, and now he's pro-life. Pro-drug decriminalization, and now tough on drugs. For the invasion of Iraq, and now against it. For universal health-care, and now against that.

He's used cheap foreign labour to build skyscrapers. He's imported Chinese steel. He's paid big money to Democrat politicians, including "crooked Hillary". Almost every position he takes is the exact opposite of what he once said or did. 


That demonstrates a willingness to hang loose and remain flexible rather than be set in concrete like a Jimmy Hoffa.


Do you want Trump to hang loose and flexible with his policies, Herbie?

The wall? Muslims? Making Amerika great again?

Questions questions.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #295 - Oct 24th, 2016 at 8:06pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 12:46pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 7:38am:
Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 7:17am:
Let me try it once again. I'm retired, so I've got endless patience.

Not sure about that... You seem to be often 'leaving the building' in a geriatric tantrum...

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 7:17am:
How will Hillary Clinton be an improvement upon Trump in dealing with China on this issue?


Do you think it takes one man on a horse with a beauty pageant contestant as an adviser to take on world-class career politicians and hostile heads of state? Let's see you get that ingrown toenail removed from an Alan Bond character.

BTW how's that Presidential IQ thing going? You know google will tell you Clinton hasn't yet served as a President... Don't think of needing to google this as an obvious sign of your oncoming dementia... Think of it as, say, 'outsourcing your memory'

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 7:17am:
Shoot. Make us happy.

Love the royal 'we'... Sort of English in a way... But lacks balls.



My patience is legendary among those who know me. It's why I missed my vocation as a mercenary sniper in combat zones. 

So!

We're waiting.  Smiley

Just wondering if you've ever worked with (or for) state / federal ministers or career politicians ?
Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
Lord Herbert
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 34441
Gender: male
Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #296 - Oct 24th, 2016 at 8:26pm
 
NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 8:06pm:
Just wondering if you've ever worked with (or for) state / federal ministers or career politicians ?


I/We've been wondering why you're finding it so difficult to answer the question as to how Hillary will deal with the China Sea expansion problem better than Trump.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 44387
Gender: male
Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #297 - Oct 24th, 2016 at 8:43pm
 
Karnal wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 4:52pm:
Frank wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 2:27pm:
Karnal wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 1:02pm:
The point, as you know very well, is not to create policies, but to hit all the right notes with the bigots. 




No - the point is to represent the popular will rather than be as unmoored from who you represent as the Democrats and the Republicans are now. 


This is not the popular will. It's a distraction created by a certain class of elites and spread through their media.

Hysteria over race is an easy fallback option, but it masks the very real issues that have hit the Western world since the GFC, or the "Great Recession" as it's known in the US.

The "Establishment" response to this economic crisis was to bail out the banks rather than people's home loans. As real wages dropped, corporate salaries soared. As corporate taxes dropped, income taxes remained the same. People lost their homes, jobs and credit worthiness while people like Trump paid no tax at all.

What's the response? A refugee "crisis". A Mexican wall. A terror "threat". For some, it works every time. It worked in Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, the Deep South, and it seems to work all over the world when times get tough and the pinch is on. There will always be people to exploit fear and race hate, and they will always be used by your "Establishment" to distract and divert.

Always, absolutely, never ever.




You ARE stupid enough to confuse illegal immigration with race.
You are moving into Mothra, gweggowy, Greens_Win territory: being stupid on purpose.

I didn't think you were quite that stupid but there you area - you ARE that stupid.


You cannot think outside your shopworn 1980s cliches - we see that in your endless repetition of all that same-old-same-old tired tropes.

'Karnal, we are not in Kansas any more'.


Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #298 - Oct 24th, 2016 at 8:53pm
 
Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 8:26pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 8:06pm:
Just wondering if you've ever worked with (or for) state / federal ministers or career politicians ?


I/We've been wondering why you're finding it so difficult to answer the question as to how Hillary will deal with the China Sea expansion problem better than Trump.

It's based on the relationship that a senior politician (HOG / executive HOS) builds with the administrative.

I'd be betting that Clinton would understand the relationships required (with Cabinet and Congress) for a President to form a strategy to tackle an issue in the Pacific that the Chinese will, without doubt, present to the next President within the first few months of her Presidency. What that strategy might be will depend on the skill of the advisors and the President's ability to accept it.

So far Trump has been unable to work with any of his advisers (either sacking them or having them walk off the job) which is about as clear an indication as we'll get of how long Trump would be able to keep his cabinet together long enough to advise him of what appropriate action to take.

Even Kennedy ran aground on this point when as a young President he presided over the Bay of Pigs disaster. His decisions, it is suggested, were ultimately fatally flawed by 'groupthink'... But then again he was young and likely not mature enough to comprehend the difference between good advice and subconsciously flattery.

With Trump it would not be 'groupthink' that will likely leave him incapable of hearing the advice he would need to hear, but malignant self-obsession (i.e. the inability to accept advice that does not come from his own impulsive mind) that will leave any decision he makes as fatally flawed.

Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 44387
Gender: male
Re: Who Will Win the Presidency?
Reply #299 - Oct 24th, 2016 at 9:03pm
 
NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 8:53pm:
Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 8:26pm:
NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 24th, 2016 at 8:06pm:
Just wondering if you've ever worked with (or for) state / federal ministers or career politicians ?


I/We've been wondering why you're finding it so difficult to answer the question as to how Hillary will deal with the China Sea expansion problem better than Trump.

It's based on the relationship that a senior politician (HOG / executive HOS) builds with the administrative.

I'd be betting that Clinton would understand the relationships required (with Cabinet and Congress) for a President to form a strategy to tackle an issue in the Pacific that the Chinese will, without doubt, present to the next President within the first few months of her Presidency. What that strategy might be will depend on the skill of the advisors and the President's ability to accept it.

So far Trump has been unable to work with any of his advisers (either sacking them or having them walk off the job) which is about as clear an indication as we'll get of how long Trump would be able to keep his cabinet together long enough to advise him of what appropriate action to take.

Even Kennedy ran aground on this point when as a young President he presided over the Bay of Pigs disaster. His decisions, it is suggested, were ultimately fatally flawed by 'groupthink'... But then again he was young and likely not mature enough to comprehend the difference between good advice and subconsciously flattery.

With Trump it would not be 'groupthink' that will likely leave him incapable of hearing the advice he would need to hear, but malignant self-obsession (i.e. the inability to accept advice that does not come from his own impulsive mind) that will leave any decision he makes as fatally flawed.




Trump is clear about what not to compromise. He is an American.

Hillary is very well versed in how to compromise before it's time to compromise. She is like a guilt-ridden German.
Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 ... 49
Send Topic Print