Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools?

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Search YouTube for "Taiwanese news animation." You'll thank me. (And be warned, some of them can be NSFW.)

Yes, I am familiar with the oeuvre.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Hillary has a gift for making herself look as bad as possible whenever anything remotely negative comes up. This e-mail server thing is getting quite interesting. The mystery of the wiped server brings to mind an early 70s President who was missing, what, 20 minutes off a recording? She may ride it out, but the assumption that she will be the sure fire Dem candidate is looking at least a little wobbly. Biden has issues, but he in many ways looks like a safer option than Hillary and all her baggage (which seems to grow by the day).

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Hillary has a gift for making herself look as bad as possible whenever anything remotely negative comes up.

No question, she's awful in image creation -- the very opposite of Bubba. I don't know whether it's that anybody who isn't a polished politician would look terrible in the spotlight, or that she's just somehow naturally singularly repellent. She's a horrific public speaker and almost as terrible an interview. When she tries to joke it looks like an SNL parody of a creepy old man trying to be hip with the kids.

My assessment of her chances of winning shrinks each time I see her speak, and there is a lot of speaking between now and election day.

I understand that Liz Warren didn't want to run, but this could have been a transformative year in American politics if she had. Biden's a terrible idea which I can't help but think is just being floated by conservatives. The fact that I heart Bernie so deeply tells me all I need to know about his chances. So we are stuck with Hillary -- she's an ugly horse but our horse, and I just hope we can whip her across the finish line ahead of whatever bedraggled nag the GOP runs.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

No question, she's awful in image creation -- the very opposite of Bubba. I don't know whether it's that anybody who isn't a polished politician would look terrible in the spotlight, or that she's just somehow naturally singularly repellent. She's a horrific public speaker and almost as terrible an interview. When she tries to joke it looks like an SNL parody of a creepy old man trying to be hip with the kids.

My assessment of her chances of winning shrinks each time I see her speak, and there is a lot of speaking between now and election day.

I understand that Liz Warren didn't want to run, but this could have been a transformative year in American politics if she had. Biden's a terrible idea which I can't help but think is just being floated by conservatives. The fact that I heart Bernie so deeply tells me all I need to know about his chances. So we are stuck with Hillary -- she's an ugly horse but our horse, and I just hope we can whip her across the finish line ahead of whatever bedraggled nag the GOP runs.

I'm not a big Biden fan, but can see how Dems might turn to him as a relatively safe option if Hillary ends up imploding. One thing about campaigns being so horribly long now is that if nothing else they test someone's staying power. I find it interesting that Warren is so highly spoken of, but I remember when she was first running and most if not all folks around here didn't think much of her. Can't say I've followed her closely, but I guess sometimes folks get in office and do better than expected, other times it goes the other way.

Hey, maybe we can have Sanders vs. Trump! That would be a hoot, though when I put my serious hat on, I couldn't fathom either of them running this country. Sanders to me is passionate and genuine (which I respect), but his end positions can be quite wacky. Trump is an obnoxious jerk who I've never liked and couldn't vote for, but he does make a point here and there (however inarticulately) that no one else will make (and some dumb/wrong points for sure).

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

I'm not a big Biden fan, but can see how Dems might turn to him as a relatively safe option if Hillary ends up imploding. One thing about campaigns being so horribly long now is that if nothing else they test someone's staying power. I find it interesting that Warren is so highly spoken of, but I remember when she was first running and most if not all folks around here didn't think much of her. Can't say I've followed her closely, but I guess sometimes folks get in office and do better than expected, other times it goes the other way.

Hey, maybe we can have Sanders vs. Trump! That would be a hoot, though when I put my serious hat on, I couldn't fathom either of them running this country. Sanders to me is passionate and genuine (which I respect), but his end positions can be quite wacky. Trump is an obnoxious jerk who I've never liked and couldn't vote for, but he does make a point here and there (however inarticulately) that no one else will make (and some dumb/wrong points for sure).

I'd have no problem at all with Sanders as president. His policies are no more "wacky" than most of Western Europe -- it's the US' quasi-Chilean plutocracy that's the outlier among democratic nations. Bernie himself is nothing if not authentic -- he has been saying this stuff for 40 years! -- so if people *really* want an end to political mendacity, there's nobody better.

Bernie would also gore almost as many Democratic as Republican oxen. Ever since the DLC captured the Democratic party we have been nearly as beholden to the crooks and liars of finance and crony capitalism as the GOP. Bernie would be the rare breeze that would sweep both sets of cobwebs out at once, where we generally have to be content to just blow one and then the other. Er, or something.

Liz actually turned out to be a great Senator. Much like Franken, she was a nice surprise -- somebody with ideas and conviction but also the ability to work with people and craft good policy. And of course Warren is an amazing communicator -- she's Reaganesque in the way she can take murky concepts and by her own personal clarity move audiences to feel like they have a solid grip on them. That is highly effective and I think she would be able to mobilize a lot of support. Not to mention the little matter that she's, you know, right on the facts.

I think Trump's Gonna Trump. It is really interesting to me that Republican voters (or those polled anyway) are basically saying they don't care what policy a candidate advocates as long as he says it with confidence. Of course the flipside of that is it's the very definition of a cult of personality. I have been assuming he will flame out about Thanksgiving, but Thanksgiving is not all that far away anymore... If nothing else he's the greatest Silly Season story in media history.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Liz Warren would be an actual breath of fresh air for me. We might actually be able to Parise forbid talk about policies and platform. If I'm the GOP despite the knucks they're offering up I want Hillary to last as long as possible. I know Rover disagrees but...

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

$20k in debt upon graduation? Get with the times, Handy! It's a minimum $30k these days. Sheesh!

I meant for just the 2 years that would be free. If the students decide to leave they wouldnt be burdened with debt.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

I'd have no problem at all with Sanders as president. His policies are no more "wacky" than most of Western Europe -- it's the US' quasi-Chilean plutocracy that's the outlier among democratic nations. Bernie himself is nothing if not authentic -- he has been saying this stuff for 40 years! -- so if people *really* want an end to political mendacity, there's nobody better.

Bernie would also gore almost as many Democratic as Republican oxen. Ever since the DLC captured the Democratic party we have been nearly as beholden to the crooks and liars of finance and crony capitalism as the GOP. Bernie would be the rare breeze that would sweep both sets of cobwebs out at once, where we generally have to be content to just blow one and then the other. Er, or something.

Liz actually turned out to be a great Senator. Much like Franken, she was a nice surprise -- somebody with ideas and conviction but also the ability to work with people and craft good policy. And of course Warren is an amazing communicator -- she's Reaganesque in the way she can take murky concepts and by her own personal clarity move audiences to feel like they have a solid grip on them. That is highly effective and I think she would be able to mobilize a lot of support. Not to mention the little matter that she's, you know, right on the facts.

I think Trump's Gonna Trump. It is really interesting to me that Republican voters (or those polled anyway) are basically saying they don't care what policy a candidate advocates as long as he says it with confidence. Of course the flipside of that is it's the very definition of a cult of personality. I have been assuming he will flame out about Thanksgiving, but Thanksgiving is not all that far away anymore... If nothing else he's the greatest Silly Season story in media history.

I think most of the support for Trump is really a no confidence vote in status quo and other candidates who would largely continue the status quo, rather than a real in depth support of Trump himself. Bernie and Trump are hugely different, but I think each in their own way is tapping into voter dissatisfaction with Washington and business as usual. Whether either has any staying power as things get more serious down the road will be interesting to watch. Somehow in the end I expect they'll both fade and we'll get business as usual.

My calculus on Bernie is that I think he's pretty far out there on some issues, but I do like his genuineness and passion and I agree he'd clean house a good bit, which I really like (though I think he wouldn't clean house as much on the Dem side for sure). It's a tempting risk to take that he would get in and clean house a good bit and Congress would keep him from getting too far out of control. But then, with Obama's example of doing so much without working with Congress, it scares me what Bernie might do by Presidential fiat, as Obama often has done. And then there's the Supreme Court where more liberal appointments would make for an even more disastrous Court for people with socially conservative interests.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

I think most of the support for Trump is really a no confidence vote in status quo and other candidates who would largely continue the status quo, rather than a real in depth support of Trump himself. Bernie and Trump are hugely different, but I think each in their own way is tapping into voter dissatisfaction with Washington and business as usual. Whether either has any staying power as things get more serious down the road will be interesting to watch. Somehow in the end I expect they'll both fade and we'll get business as usual.

My calculus on Bernie is that I think he's pretty far out there on some issues, but I do like his genuineness and passion and I agree he'd clean house a good bit, which I really like (though I think he wouldn't clean house as much on the Dem side for sure). It's a tempting risk to take that he would get in and clean house a good bit and Congress would keep him from getting too far out of control. But then, with Obama's example of doing so much without working with Congress, it scares me what Bernie might do by Presidential fiat, as Obama often has done. And then there's the Supreme Court where more liberal appointments would make for an even more disastrous Court for people with socially conservative interests.

Still waiting for Obama's Martial Law. Gotta be coming soon. Fox News told me he's coming for my guns.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

I think most of the support for Trump is really a no confidence vote in status quo and other candidates who would largely continue the status quo, rather than a real in depth support of Trump himself. Bernie and Trump are hugely different, but I think each in their own way is tapping into voter dissatisfaction with Washington and business as usual. Whether either has any staying power as things get more serious down the road will be interesting to watch. Somehow in the end I expect they'll both fade and we'll get business as usual.

My calculus on Bernie is that I think he's pretty far out there on some issues, but I do like his genuineness and passion and I agree he'd clean house a good bit, which I really like (though I think he wouldn't clean house as much on the Dem side for sure). It's a tempting risk to take that he would get in and clean house a good bit and Congress would keep him from getting too far out of control. But then, with Obama's example of doing so much without working with Congress, it scares me what Bernie might do by Presidential fiat, as Obama often has done. And then there's the Supreme Court where more liberal appointments would make for an even more disastrous Court for people with socially conservative interests.

I agree with nearly all of this; I think Trump's flame out will be more people starting to think about actual positions rather than mannerisms. At that point the candidates who have thought through their positions (Bush, Paul, god help us all Walker) will take precedence over the Deez Nuts middle finger candidates (Trump, Carson, Cruz).

Bernie just needs exposure. If he can get to the debates with Hillary in the 30s, he'll come out of them in the 40's when people say, "wait? THIS is the guy I'm supposed to be afraid of? He's completely reasonable!" The great thing about Bernie he doesn't dodge or finesse anything, so compared with Hillary it's going to look like Abe Lincoln vs, well, Bill Clinton!

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

This is a great story if only for one of the Comments.

This race is like the running of the bulls. Innocent spectators get gored to death, sure, but in the end, the bull is certainly going to get speared in a public ceremony.

Also, not joking at all, I am completely in favor of this and I think he would do an honest-to-god great job.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

I would be in favor of it if I believed for a second that Stewart wouldnt just start debating himself halfway through. He has a tendency to interrupt people in interviews and just speak for them ESPECIALLY when he doesnt agree with them. Usually his points are correct or at least salient, but it is offputting many times.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

I would be in favor of it if I believed for a second that Stewart wouldnt just start debating himself halfway through. He has a tendency to interrupt people in interviews and just speak for them ESPECIALLY when he doesnt agree with them. Usually his points are correct or at least salient, but it is off-putting many times.

I have only heard him do that when the interviewee is deflecting, and he shoves their own quote back at them.

Colbert would actually be even better -- he's significantly smarter and quicker than Stewart. But Colbert is compromised forever by his character on TCR.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

He did it to Obama in their last interview...he does it a lot people just ignore it or miss it cause he follows it with a joke that gets everyone laughing. When it works it is great but sometimes it ruins the interview and pushes the interviewee away.

I like Stewart and his commentary on the days events are great but he would become the show if he moderated and his bias would all but ruin it.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

This is a great story if only for one of the Comments.



Also, not joking at all, I am completely in favor of this and I think he would do an honest-to-god great job.

I'd take it a step further and say that Stewart would make a solid president.

Sure Bernie has passion and says what he believes and runs on that. But I still have serious reservations on two levels...is his 'real world' experience of catering to the likes of Vermont inhabitants much more valid for the POTUS than Fiorina's non-existent resume? And second, I have questions on his ability to bring in a wide variety of points of view...really would his administration be grounded in facts?

Even a great heart can go off the rails if it doesn't have this kind of stuff figured out.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

I like Stewart and his commentary on the days events are great but he would become the show if he moderated and his bias would all but ruin it.

I think as an intelligent person he would run a debate differently than he ran a comedy program.

But as I said, Colbert would I believe be even better, because Colbert obviously bleeds for integrity and proper process.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Sure Bernie has passion and says what he believes and runs on that. But I still have serious reservations on two levels...is his 'real world' experience of catering to the likes of Vermont inhabitants much more valid for the POTUS than Fiorina's non-existent resume? And second, I have questions on his ability to bring in a wide variety of points of view...really would his administration be grounded in facts?

Even a great heart can go off the rails if it doesn't have this kind of stuff figured out.

Obama may have exploded the notion that you need real world leadership experience to be a successful president. But Bernie may well actually have that kind of leadership experience. He must have been doing something right to be able to serve not only as a conscience but also as a facilitator of policy over the last 40 years.

The irony here is that Bernie isn't an uncompromising idealist like say Nader because he comes out of a different background. Nader was a consumer advocate -- those people are supposed to anchor one end of a negotiation and never move off it to get the most they can for their "client." But Bernie's been a legislator, so he's had to get in there elbow deep in the blood and slime of making the sausages. To be successful at that you have to be able to motivate and convince but also to know when to pick your battles and recognize when you're getting the best deal the circumstances will allow.

I actually like Bernie more for his head than his heart, since, as you say, there are plenty of Mother Theresas out there that would get their arse handed them going up against the gangstas that politics attracts/creates/nourishes.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Obama may have exploded the notion that you need real world leadership experience to be a successful president. But Bernie may well actually have that kind of leadership experience. He must have been doing something right to be able to serve not only as a conscience but also as a facilitator of policy over the last 40 years.

I am uneducated on Sanders...and am purely going on instinct.

Obama had the magic mix coming. What he didn't have in actual experience, he had in intelligence. He has the ability to be flexible (even being self deprecating in the process) and communicate across barriers (including the aisle). You just knew he had the talent to do anything he wanted in the business world...but chose to serve. And in the end, he hasn't always done what I wanted...but his time in office has turned out well and the country is much better for it.

Sanders comes in as potentially the opposite in many ways (not making any statements about his intelligence though). And I say this probably making unfair accusations (and even as someone who supports many of his views), I'm not sure if a self described socialist from a sheltered state has the ability to navigate the treacherous waters of the POTUS and lead this country forward maximizing our potential in the open fields of the 21st century. There are others in either party (whom I probably even dislike) that I feel more comfortable that can accomplish getting us into the future. In the end, I don't think it matters because Sanders won't get the nomination anyways.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Sanders comes in as potentially the opposite in many ways (not making any statements about his intelligence though). And I say this probably making unfair accusations (and even as someone who supports many of his views), I'm not sure if a self described socialist from a sheltered state has the ability to navigate the treacherous waters of the POTUS and lead this country forward maximizing our potential in the open fields of the 21st century. There are others in either party (whom I probably even dislike) that I feel more comfortable that can accomplish getting us into the future. In the end, I don't think it matters because Sanders won't get the nomination anyways.

Well, yeah, there is that.

The self-described Socialist part just tells me he's likely far more in tune with the rest of the world than most pols. Look, if you're a Socialist in the US most of your models are probably going to come from outside the US because it's not like we've had any sort of Socialist tradition here since Eugene Debs. Socialists also tend to view national politics in the context of international regional and even global political forces because markets and class interests don't care about national borders.

In a fictional Sanders presidency I could see him leading the charge for serious reductions in both military budget and overseas troop presence. You would not see him using the US military as the coercive branch of Exxon-Mobile, for example. All of those measures would be good things. On the other hand I'd expect to see him press for much greater State Department involvement with both allies and adversaries, and maybe even an increase in the sanctions placed on countries with bad civil rights records -- even places like China. The sacrosanct business ties of transnational elites would not be a big consideration for a Sanders administration -- once again, a win for the country.

Domestically obviously he'd have a lot of problems trying to cut back on the corporate welfare that the corporate class and their puppet Senators use the US government to plunder from the public purse. He would likely recommend a tax structure where the effective tax rate on most people would actually go down, counter-balanced by a restoration of progressive rates from the 40s and 50s on high earners. Where one stands on that comes down to a matter of economic theory, but you can be sure he wouldn't be able to get all or even most of what he wanted, with virtually ever corporate-owned media outlet yowling like a toddler.

Bernie becoming president would represent such a shift in the public narrative on taxes and the Empire that we couldn't discount an FDR-like purge of reactionaries in Congress as well, but this isn't 1932 and sadly even the Democrats are neo-liberals now. TPTB have done their job well: there is almost no way for the American public to escape neo-liberalism except through the presidency and, slowly, through the courts.

Not to mention that they'd probably just murder him anyway.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

I think most of the support for Trump is really a no confidence vote in status quo and other candidates who would largely continue the status quo, rather than a real in depth support of Trump himself. Bernie and Trump are hugely different, but I think each in their own way is tapping into voter dissatisfaction with Washington and business as usual. Whether either has any staying power as things get more serious down the road will be interesting to watch. Somehow in the end I expect they'll both fade and we'll get business as usual.

This is the best assessment I've read regarding the whole scene at the moment.